> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
>> news:web.4ac9720b3f8a411cac4259f0@news.povray.org...
>>> I'd never heard of "+fj"!   It's always seemed missing even if jpeg is a
>>> better
>>> distribution format than a "mastering" format.  I can imagine there being
>>> some
>>> rare uses.  That said, I have to agree with Trevor's comment. :)
>>>
>> Well, yes and no. JPEG is a lossy format (it's designed that way), but I
>> find it by far and away the most convenient when working on graphics
>> destined for web pages. Any implication that it's not a worthy format to be
>> supported by POV-Ray makes me a tad nervous. I think it should find its way
>> into the documentation, with a warning that it's not a loss-free format and
>> that the results will unavoidably contain JPEG artifacts. People could then
>> simply use another format for any process that requires some sort of top
>> quality master.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris B.
> 
> Sorry, no anxiety intended. ;)  I agree JPEG output is a good option to have
> available.  One feature which could make it even better would be a quality
> option. For example "+fjxx" where "xx" is a numeric quality level similar to
> what you can enter when saving a JPEG in GIMP.
> 
> (Disclaimer: I don't know just how quick or easy this would be to implement, and
> I imagine it would be of relatively low priority compared to other things.)
> 
> I think depending on the content of an image, JPEG can be more distracting than
> at other times.  For instance, I tried +fj on a test render with very simple
> textures, some fine detail and a blue sky sphere.  It looked bad.   I suspect
> the more a rendering looks like a photo (i.e. no shortage of detail so you're
> not staring at one little spot which you can't see clearly), the less
> distracting JPEG artifacts might be for a given compression level.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
Also, using AA can greatly help.

Alain

Post a reply to this message