Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: bruteCM compressor

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hello,

    here is my bruteCM compressor v0.1a

    it uses conext mixing technique.

    http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~is93061/brutecm_01a.zip

    Since it is a very primary version. There are much room for improvement.

  2. #2
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    Well, it seems to be lossless at least

    But I have to say that its results are pretty
    similar to ppmonstr -o3 for text and -o2 for binaries,
    and its slow for order-3 CM if that was your intention.

    Also there's an observation that even with plain
    symbol frequencies for counters and something dumb
    like escape probabilities for weights, you can already
    get around 210k on book1 (your current result is 231k).

    Also here's a compressor made in 2001 and with not much
    smarter model than described above (206k on book1):
    http://compression.ru/sh/ppmy_3c.rar

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi, Shelwien

    Thanks for that comments.
    The models I used in the first version is not very well.
    I'll keep on improving it!

  4. #4
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    > The models I used in the first version is not very well.
    > I'll keep on improving it!

    Btw, are you writing it paq-way too?
    With a hash and byte states or p-=(p>>5) counters?

    ...Just wondering why people suddenly became unable to
    design a suffix tree.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I didn't use suffix tree.
    I just use a 64MB hash table and use different hash function to map the context into corresponding hash entry.
    And in each hash entry I record the n0 and n1 counts just like the formula that mentioned in M. Mahoney's paper ," Adaptive Weighing of Context Models for Lossless Data Compression".

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    shelwien:
    cm engines usually encodes one bit at once. ppmd encodes full byte at once so suffix tree is compact and efficent in that case. francesco's hook admc compressor creates binary suffix tree afaiu(nderstand). so it should be possible to make a conventional cm engine on top of hook.

  7. #7
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts
    Hi vcore!
    my opinion:
    + Good Compression!
    - need more Speed!

  8. #8
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    > cm engines usually encodes one bit at once.

    There's nothing "usual" in that actually.
    Or, more like, it mostly applies to paq-way compressors,
    as eg. 5 years ago bitwise compressors were relatively rare.
    Also there's no benefits in using binary decomposition,
    as it requires more complex model code, its slow due to
    interval coder calls on every bit, and its bad for compression
    as most of target files have bytewise structure.
    So the only valid reason I can see for writing bitwise compressors
    is that it allows for more straightforward statistics retrieval,
    when used in conjunction with a simple hash, in which case a basic
    compressor might be really simpler at least in design, if not by
    program code.
    But it seems that more frequent reason recently is imitating Matt
    without any thinking.

    > ppmd encodes full byte at once so suffix tree is compact and efficent in that case.

    The actual advantage of context trees is precise statistics, while for hash
    its more natural to have index collisions. But its also a flaw at the same time,
    as merging of similar statistics has to be explicitly implemented for a tree,
    and hash "does it by default", so when an inexperienced person writes a compressor,
    the results would be automagically better with hashing.
    And also trees have their other drawbacks, like a complicated structure (hard to design),
    troubles with controlling their size, unpredictable access speed etc.
    So I won't agitate for switching from hashes to trees
    But still, there's a lot more to data structures than a simple hash.
    Though even with a simple hash, it could be interesting if only someone tried
    to design a hash function with context analysis instead of copy-pasting it
    from some available sources.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    its slow due to
    interval coder calls on every bit, and its bad for compression
    as most of target files have bytewise structure
    take a look at fpaq0*. even you wrote a kind of such coder. and it codes bits separately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    So the only valid reason I can see for writing bitwise compressors
    is that it allows for more straightforward statistics retrieval
    yes!!! and it speeds up everything with cm models. when coding entire byte at once you have to compute probability of every symbol in alphabet. it gives a big overhead for little benefit.

    i think that binary context tree as in hook will be best. hook encodes bits separately and is relatively fast (much faster than ppmonstr/ lpaq). so adding cm engine plus some small models like specialized model for formatted text, model for interpunction, model for english grammar (eg. predicting that he has has higher probability than he have), model for numbers, dates, identifiers, markups, etc.

    also it would be interesting to have some hard coded model (able to switch off when not applicable) for common structures.


    bit by bit encoding is particularly good for analog data where low bits contains much noise.

  10. #10
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    >> its slow due to
    >> interval coder calls on every bit, and its bad for compression
    >> as most of target files have bytewise structure
    >
    > take a look at fpaq0*. even you wrote a kind of such coder.
    > and it codes bits separately.

    That's a consequence actually. I wrote it that way mainly because
    I wanted a possibility of direct comparison with fpaq0.
    Well, I also planned to turn it into unary coder after that, but
    it seemed like noone paid any attention.

    1. Do you understand that cumulative symbol probabilities are different
    with bitwise and bytewise updates?
    2. Do you understand that text and executables are generated bytewise,
    so there's no sense in increasing the probabilities of the bytes with
    same bit prefixes as a given symbol?

    >> So the only valid reason I can see for writing bitwise compressors
    >> is that it allows for more straightforward statistics retrieval
    >
    > yes!!! and it speeds up everything with cm models. when coding entire byte at
    > once you have to compute probability of every symbol in alphabet.
    > it gives a big overhead for little benefit.

    Well, I'd already explained all about unary coding, SSE, etc in other post.
    So I'll only repeat that unary bytewise coding is significantly faster
    than bitwise for most compressible files. And the reason for that is
    that ~70% of bytes match the rank0 prediction, and there's only one
    rangecoder update per byte instead of 8.

    > i think that binary context tree as in hook will be best.

    "Binary context tree" like in a tree with branch per every context bit?
    Now, thats slow for sure.
    Even a bytewise tree (or trie) can be slower than a hash depending on
    a specific structure details and data properties, but its certain for
    a binary tree.

    > hook encodes bits
    > separately and is relatively fast (much faster than ppmonstr/ lpaq).

    I'm not even a bit interested in a speed of compressor which has
    20% worse compression than my own ash04, which is nowhere near best itself.
    Speed is a matter of programming, while model design is still mostly
    unexplored, so why waste your time on things that any decent programmer
    can do, even without any compression experience?

    > model for interpunction, model for english grammar (eg. predicting that 'he has'
    > has higher probability than 'he have'), model for numbers, dates, identifiers,
    > markups, etc.

    Btw, unary coding is much better for submodel merging too.
    Well, SSE is more advanced technique than mixing, so that's no wonder.
    Its simply troublesome to design a good secondary model for symbol bits.

    > bit by bit encoding is particularly good for analog data where low bits contains
    > much noise.

    Analog files/streams, eg. audio, are compressed using linear prediction
    (spectral transforms are the same actually) and then symbol model for
    log2 of a sample value remainder, and then other bits are usually stored
    as is for speed if its a lossless model, or discarded if its lossy.
    But either way, there's no bitwise models for bits of original data
    in known audio nor video codecs, though guess there might be some dumb
    image codecs.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    So Ill only repeat that unary bytewise coding is significantly faster
    than bitwise for most compressible files. And the reason for that is
    that ~70% of bytes match the rank0 prediction, and theres only one
    rangecoder update per byte instead of 8.
    i think that when encoding you must compute total probability and probability of each symobl. its easy with ppmd scheme as it doesnt mix those probabilities with other models but when for example i want to combine probabilities from two ppm models and/ or custom bytewise model?


    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    Im not even a bit interested in a speed of compressor which has
    20% worse compression than my own ash04, which is nowhere near best itself.
    hmm, hook performs well on ltcb, better than ash and 7 times faster althoug using 2.5 times the memory. i bet that with some memory wise optimizations (reduce the size of structures) it and some tunings to the model it can beat ash with same memory usage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    Analog files/streams, eg. audio, are compressed using linear prediction
    (spectral transforms are the same actually) and then symbol model for
    log2 of a sample value remainder, and then other bits are usually stored
    as is for speed if its a lossless model, or discarded if its lossy.
    But either way, theres no bitwise models for bits of original data
    in known audio nor video codecs, though guess there might be some dumb
    image codecs.
    lossy codecs use fourier like transforms and quantization and simple order- 0 entropy coding. the coding scheme in flac is very reduntant. paq scores poor on wave compression benchmarks because it uses input noise as an context. with some context filtering and linear prediction approximation it should compress better than existing high performance audio codecs.

    paq like engines (paq8 and winrk) scores much better on mc bmp compression test than any other compressors (not taking stuffit into consideration as we know nothing about it).


    i agree that texts are bytewise generated and they should be modeled by bytes not bits but for example executables contains offsets which are best compressed bitwise.

  12. #12
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    >> So I'll only repeat that unary bytewise coding is significantly faster
    >> than bitwise for most compressible files. And the reason for that is
    >> that ~70% of bytes match the rank0 prediction, and there's only one
    >> rangecoder update per byte instead of 8.
    >
    > i think that when encoding you must compute total probability and probability of
    > each symbol.

    How so? If you know the probability of rank0 symbol only, that's already enough
    to encode 70% of file without looking any further.
    Well, there's a performance problem in ASH due to the fact that counters are
    stored as probabilities, so all the counters in all orders have to be updated
    on each step, but that not necessarily has to be done that way.
    Why, there's even a update exclusion/partial update techniques used in
    ppmd/ppmonstr, so only one counter has to be updated in the best case.

    > it's easy with ppmd scheme as it doesn't mix those probabilities

    Ppmonstr has pretty much the same unary loop as ppmd, and it does
    have some additional simple submodels (order1 sparse and such) attached via SSE.
    Well, if you missed the source I'd posted a while ago, that's your problem.

    > with other models but when for example i want to combine probabilities from two
    > ppm models and/ or custom bytewise model?

    Unary coding is bitwise in fact, it simply uses a different binary decomposition.
    But that has nothing to do with symbol counters update.
    As to model combining, its done with unary coding like everywhere else.
    Eg. ASH has unary coding and context mixing, and ppmonstr uses additional
    submodels in SSE indexes.
    In fact, ppmonstr was the first compressor which really used several
    different submodels at once. And I think its actually still better in it than paq.

    >> I'm not even a bit interested in a speed of compressor which has
    >> 20% worse compression than my own ash04, which is nowhere near best itself.
    >
    > hmm, hook performs well on ltcb, better than ash and 7 times faster althoug
    > using 2.5 times the memory.

    Well, repeat that after testing ash with right options.
    Matt used /o10 there (thats order9 - too small for texts), and didn't add /s
    so guess its default /s5, which is again no good for large texts.
    And also ash's compression becomes very bad when it hits the memory limit - it
    simply disables statistic updates - there was no large files in comparison
    corpora at that time.

    ...Guess, I'd run some tests tonight - I actually don't know what's its real
    performance on enwik8.

    > i bet that with some memory wise optimizations
    > (reduce the size of structures) it and some tunings to the model it can beat ash
    > with same memory usage.

    Well, ash04 isn't my masterpiece or anything either.
    Its just an example model I'd written after finally discovering how SSE
    is really used. Its only goal was to beat ppmonstr v.I on book1, and that
    it does.

    >> Analog files/streams, eg. audio, are compressed using linear prediction
    >> (spectral transforms are the same actually) and then symbol model for
    >> log2 of a sample value remainder, and then other bits are usually stored
    >> as is for speed if its a lossless model, or discarded if its lossy.
    >> But either way, there's no bitwise models for bits of original data
    >> in known audio nor video codecs, though guess there might be some dumb
    >> image codecs.
    >
    > lossy codecs use fourier like transforms

    As I said, fourier transform (or DCT/MDCT and other derivatives) is a linear
    transformation of input data, so similar to sequential linear predictors.

    > and quantization and simple order-0 entropy coding.

    There're also codecs where I'd written the model

    > context filtering and linear prediction approximation it should compress better
    > than existing high performance audio codecs.

    Yes, and no wonder with such a speed.
    But still, encoding the difference with approximation is not exactly a bitwise
    approach. Also even for audio deltas bitwise compression would be really
    redundant in the speed sense, due to huge amount of zero bits (eg. 16 bits with
    only 2-3 used on average).

    > paq like engines (paq8 and winrk) scores much better on mc bmp compression test
    > than any other compressors

    Are there results of Shkarin's bmf included?
    And also Taylor's image compression is probably based on his rkim compressor and
    has nothing in common with paq.
    Anyway, the situation is like that simply because nobody bothered to write a
    proper CM model for images.

    > i agree that texts are bytewise generated and they should be modeled by bytes
    > not bits but for example executables contains offsets which are best compressed
    > bitwise.

    Offsets are best compressed as labels in the code.
    And btw durilca includes a real disassembler which strips the code into streams
    of different field types, and these streams are bytewise too, because that preprocessor
    was written like that

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    How so? If you know the probability of rank0 symbol only, thats already enough
    to encode 70% of file without looking any further.
    Well, theres a performance problem in ASH due to the fact that counters are
    stored as probabilities, so all the counters in all orders have to be updated
    on each step, but that not necessarily has to be done that way.
    so you are storing probabilites, not counters as ppmd does? if so, updating require recomputing probabilities for all symbol to keep the sum equal to 1. and here updating consumes 90+ % of processing time, so its pointless.

    if you store counters then when mixing you must compute new total probability. it takes time.

    btw:
    model mixing = weight updating? im not experienced in cm
    (i mean weights for entire models outputs, not particular symbols from particular models).


    theres another pitfall - ppmd uses escaping. what should we do if alphabets from different models are different? so probability for a may be present in model x, but not present in model y.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien
    Are there results of Shkarins bmf included?
    And also Taylors image compression is probably based on his rkim compressor and
    has nothing in common with paq.
    Anyway, the situation is like that simply because nobody bothered to write a
    proper CM model for images.
    bmf created file 20 % larger than paq8 and winrk in pwcm (paq weighted context model) mode.

  15. #15
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    > so you are storing probabilites, not counters as ppmd does? if so, updating
    > require recomputing probabilities for all symbol to keep the sum equal to 1.
    > and here updating consumes 90+ % of processing time, so it's pointless.

    High orders have a small number of symbols, so its not as slow as you think.
    Of course, its not fast either, but I didn't care about that much... and still don't.

    > if you store counters then when mixing you must compute new total probability.
    > it takes time.

    There was a "total" counter in the tree anyway.

    > model mixing = weight updating? i'm not experienced in cm

    Model mixing is:
    p = (p1*w1 + p2*w2)/(w1+w2)
    And "weight updating" is updating of these w1 and w2, though dunno how
    its related to previous talk.

    > there's another pitfall - ppmd uses escaping. what should we do if alphabets
    > from different models are different? so probability for 'a' may be present in
    > model x, but not present in model y.

    So what? Its another flaw of binary solutions actually - lack of escape modelling.
    Its a flaw because with properly modelled escapes the result is better.

    As to your question above, there you can estimate a prediction for 'a' using model y
    as y.pEscape/y.NumberOfUnseenSymbols.

  16. #16
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vcore
    Hello,

    here is my bruteCM compressor v0.1a

    it uses conext mixing technique.

    http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~is93061/brutecm_01a.zip
    Thanks vcore!

  17. #17
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quick test...

    A10.jpg > 859,712
    AcroRd32.exe > 1,633,610
    english.dic > 875,257
    FlashMX.pdf > 3,884,730
    FP.LOG > 802,251
    MSO97.DLL > 1,982,680
    ohs.doc > 982,269
    rafale.bmp > 832,578
    vcfiu.hlp > 1,039,809
    world95.txt > 707,178

    Total = 13,600,074 bytes

  18. #18
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Another quick test...

    Test machine: Intel PIII (Coppermine) @750 MHz, 512 MB RAM, Windows 2000 Pro SP4

    Test File: ENWIK8 (100,000,000 bytes)

    Timed with AcuTimer v1.2


    ENWIK8 > 24,706,980 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:10:52.248 (652.248 Seconds

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    bmf created file 20 % larger than paq8 and winrk in pwcm (paq weighted context model) mode.
    It would be strange if general purpose compressor would outperform specialized one in its area of specialization:

    LOCO PAQ8o8 BMFg
    BALOON.PGM 2.904 2.725 2.642
    BARB.PGM 4.691 4.292 3.939
    BARB2.PGM 4.686 4.432 4.258
    BOARD.PGM 3.675 3.603 3.319
    BOATS.PGM 3.932 3.726 3.584
    GIRL.PGM 3.925 3.655 3.501
    GOLD.PGM 4.477 4.320 4.230
    HOTEL.PGM 4.382 4.100 4.053
    LENA.PGM 4.237 4.041 3.923
    ZELDA.PGM 3.888 3.691 3.542
    Average bpp 4.080 3.859 3.699

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    what about truecolor images?

    look at this: http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/bmp.php

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    what about truecolor images?
    Tricks for multiband images are well known, so comparisons of compressors are performed for grayscale images.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    rafale.bmp is retouched (afair, lower bits are zeroed), so it is useless for comparisons.

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    do you have some preprocessor to split truecolor images to single channel layers for compression with bmfg? or another question - is the bmf 2.0 based on bmfg?

    seems that i should test it on kodak set images soon

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    do you have some preprocessor to split truecolor images to single channel layers for compression with bmfg?
    Some tricks can not be implemented by preprocessor.

    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    or another question - is the bmf 2.0 based on bmfg?
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    seems that i should test it on kodak set images soon
    Kodak images are lossy compressed, there are some problem now to find untouched images in Internet.

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 121 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    Some tricks can not be implemented by preprocessor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    Kodak images are lossy compressed, there are some problem now to find untouched images in Internet.
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    look here: http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/

    http://www.compression.ru/video/code...arison_en.html
    http://www.compression.ru/video/code...arison_en.html
    guys at msu uses images from kodak set to compare quality of lossy compression.

    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted.

    can you give a link to place with lossless (in your sense) images?

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey7
    Quoting: Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    [QUOTE=Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE]
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitry Shkarin
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist, there are only separate codecs for it.
    so your bmf is useless for truecolor images [/QUOTE
    BMF v.2.0 does not exist => it is useless for any images.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted.
    Yes, and this noise must be stored losslessly.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted.
    Yes, and this noise must be stored losslessly.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    can you give a link to place with lossless (in your sense) images?]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted.
    Yes, and this noise must be stored losslessly.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed? ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression. ]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7]<div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    most users is interested in truecolor compression.
    No, of course.
    Technical and medical images must be stored losslessly by the law and they are grayscale mainly. Lossy compression is enough for Internet users.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    how you concluded that they are lossy compressed?
    Kodak photoCD contains images in different resolutions, lower resolutions are smoothed in some artful manner.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    all losslesly stored photographs contains noise because no sensor is noiseless. so 1- 2 (sometimes more) lowest bits in each channel are polluted.
    Yes, and this noise must be stored losslessly.

    <div class=""quoting"">Quoting: donkey7
    can you give a link to place with lossless (in your sense) images?
    JPEG Continuous-tone Test Image Set, for example, but, AFAIK, it requres payment now.
    Bragzone:
    clegg.tga - exJPG image
    frymire.tga - drawed image
    lena.tga - retouched photo, but very popular
    monarch.tga - photo
    peppers.tga - photo
    sail.tga - photo
    serrano.tga - drawed image
    tulips.tga - photo

  27. #27
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,375
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 544 Posts
    Here're some images fresh off my camera (powershot s3) in raw mode: workplace, books, cat

    Can these be considered "non-retouched"?
    I'm not sure, because at least color transformations have to be applied
    (or there won't be any reasonable colors) and some interpolation due to
    hardware specifics. But at least these images had never been stored in
    any lossy format... though png is actually lossy here as there were
    more than 8bits per pixel in the raws.

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hello!

    Thanks LovePimple test for ver 0.1a

    Here is a new version ( ver 0.1b ).
    The speed is faster than before!!

    http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~is93061/bcm_ver01b.zip

    here is a quick test of sfc for this new version:

    My machine is Intel Core2 Duo T5500 ( 1.67Ghz )

    886,840 a10
    1,390,762 acrord32
    757,005 english
    3,888,630 flashmx
    846,012 fp
    1,799,865 mso97
    865,127 ohs
    862,186 rafale
    654,141 vcfiu
    598,590 world95

    total: 12,549,158 bytes.

    (comp) time cost: 65.770 seconds.

    (I use LovePimple Acutimer 1.2 to estimate the run time)

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Test of large text benchmark

    enwik8 --> 25,194,377 bytes

    (compression ) time cost: 179.114 Seconds

    use about 95 MB memory.

  30. #30
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vcore
    Here is a new version ( ver 0.1b ).
    The speed is faster than before!!

    http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~is93061/bcm_ver01b.zip
    Thanks vcore!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •