From: oskar bertrand
Subject: Re: metal thing.. once more
Date: 29 Aug 2004 14:58:06
Message: <4132273e@news.povray.org>
Slime wrote:
> It's kinda neat, but it looks like it was run through a poor resizing> algorithm; or is it just me?
I'm guessing it's the jpeg compression... It looked fine resized before
I saved it. I had to crank the compression way up.. At the compression
level I normally use to get a 1024x768 down to about 200k, this was
still at almost 500k.
I tuned my compression settings a little and attached the result...
looks a little better to me.
Oskar
From: Slime
Subject: Re: metal thing.. once more
Date: 29 Aug 2004 15:04:53
Message: <413228d5@news.povray.org>
> I tuned my compression settings a little and attached the result...> looks a little better to me.
Looks a ton better. And according to my newsreader it's actually smaller.
Those artifacts in the first image didn't really look like jpeg artifacts to
me. It looked like rows or columns of pixels were missing or doubled, making
it blocky (and not those 8x8 blocks that jpeg makes, i mean on a smaller
level). I would think if it were jpeg that was the problem then the sharp
lines would have "bled" more.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
From: oskar bertrand
Subject: Re: metal thing.. once more
Date: 29 Aug 2004 16:17:14
Message: <413239ca$1@news.povray.org>
Slime wrote:
> Looks a ton better. And according to my newsreader it's actually smaller.> > Those artifacts in the first image didn't really look like jpeg artifacts to> me. It looked like rows or columns of pixels were missing or doubled, making> it blocky (and not those 8x8 blocks that jpeg makes, i mean on a smaller> level). I would think if it were jpeg that was the problem then the sharp> lines would have "bled" more.
I would much prefer to post in .png, but this particular image when
converted that way was 1.5 meg. I suppose there's still enough people
using dialup that I would get my wrist slapped for that.
Oskar
