 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> TonyB wrote:
>
> > >For those cases where you have an image in jpeg and no other form,
> > >converting it to a non-lossy format like TGA doesn't restore what was
> > >lost. So Ross' situation is one example of where it might be useful for
> > >textures.
> >
> > Exactly my point. Most of the textures on the 'net are JPEG (AFAIK), so you
> > could just download them and use them directly, and programs like 3DS2POV
> > wouldn't have to convert the textures to other formats for you, making the
> > conversion faster and easier.
>
> Lets not run down jpeg without qualifications. Depending on the image and
> how it was saved the loss might not be noticable.
>
> In other words, don't throw away what might be useful until you have tried
> it.
Exactely my pointelly . or something.
Well, the new JPEG2000 standard look really promising, and also supports
lossless(!) compression. just a side point, I know, I know, but it would
still be a very nice thing to have that support in POV (output to jpeg
lossless, input from any jpeg) (no, I don't want lossy compression out
of POV, that would also increase the amount of beginner level questions
about why the image looks so bad (aso aso))
Well. there was a link in /. this month, didn't bookmark it though....
--
//Spider -- [ spider@bahnhof.se ]-[ http://darkmere.wanfear.com/ ]
And the devil in black dress watches over
My guardian angel walks away
Life is short and love is always over in the morning
Black wind come carry me far away
--"Sisters of Mercy" -- "Temple Of Love"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > Lets not run down jpeg without qualifications. Depending on the image and
> > how it was saved the loss might not be noticable.
> >
> > In other words, don't throw away what might be useful until you have tried
> > it.
>
> Exactely my pointelly . or something.
> Well, the new JPEG2000 standard look really promising, and also supports
> lossless(!) compression. just a side point, I know, I know, but it would
> still be a very nice thing to have that support in POV (output to jpeg
> lossless, input from any jpeg) (no, I don't want lossy compression out
> of POV, that would also increase the amount of beginner level questions
> about why the image looks so bad (aso aso))
>
> Well. there was a link in /. this month, didn't bookmark it though....
The bad news is that in 1996 (95?) when I wrote my quick and dirty HTML guide I
mentioned that fractal compression was coming to browsers.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:25:22 -0500, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ij net>]
| The bad news is that in 1996 (95?) when I wrote my quick and dirty
| HTML guide I mentioned that fractal compression was coming to browsers.
| I'll believe it when I see it.
There's a big difference here. No successful fractal compression
algoithm exist. There surely is a great potential here, but no
algorithm for effectively turning an image into a set of fractal
functions.
JPEG2000 however uses well known algorithms, and an implementation
already exists. It's written in Java, so you could have
JPEG2000 images in your browser today.
http://ltswww.epfl.ch/~neximage/decoder/index.html
--
A penny for your thoughts.
Mine are more expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>
> The bad news is that in 1996 (95?) when I wrote my quick and dirty HTML guide I
> mentioned that fractal compression was coming to browsers.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah.. I was one of those who hooked to the .fif compression program
when it came, really impressive.. then I lost the writer/viewer (not
public thing) and ignored it, I know there was a plugin for NS 3.0 and
.fif, buit it never got much spread...
--
//Spider -- [ spider@bahnhof.se ]-[ http://darkmere.wanfear.com/ ]
And the devil in black dress watches over
My guardian angel walks away
Life is short and love is always over in the morning
Black wind come carry me far away
--"Sisters of Mercy" -- "Temple Of Love"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There's a big difference here. No successful fractal compression
> algoithm exist. There surely is a great potential here, but no
> algorithm for effectively turning an image into a set of fractal
> functions.
There are.
Do a web search for the .fif format, Fractal Image Format I belive it
is. Graphic Workshop could/can read it, and it was great for photos, but
I've lost all references to it over the years.
--
//Spider -- [ spider@bahnhof.se ]-[ http://darkmere.wanfear.com/ ]
And the devil in black dress watches over
My guardian angel walks away
Life is short and love is always over in the morning
Black wind come carry me far away
--"Sisters of Mercy" -- "Temple Of Love"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Spider who wrote:
>> There's a big difference here. No successful fractal compression
>> algoithm exist. There surely is a great potential here, but no
>> algorithm for effectively turning an image into a set of fractal
>> functions.
>
>There are.
>Do a web search for the .fif format, Fractal Image Format I belive it
>is. Graphic Workshop could/can read it, and it was great for photos, but
>I've lost all references to it over the years.
There is a shareware program, Fractal Imager, at http://www.iterated.com
that can encode and decode FIF format files.
Some drawbacks with fractal image compression are:
The algorithms are patented, and the owners of the patents are not
making them freely available. In particular, they've only made the
algorithms available on a small number of operating systems.
The time taken to encode a file is quite noticeable - as much as 68
seconds for an 800x600 image on my 500MHz machine, and probably quite a
bit longer on the machines that were commonly available on 1995.
--
Mike Williams + #
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > The bad news is that in 1996 (95?) when I wrote my quick and dirty HTML guide
I
> > mentioned that fractal compression was coming to browsers.
> >
> > I'll believe it when I see it.
> Yeah.. I was one of those who hooked to the .fif compression program
> when it came, really impressive.. then I lost the writer/viewer (not
> public thing) and ignored it, I know there was a plugin for NS 3.0 and
> .fif, buit it never got much spread...
I checked. It was 94.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> [On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:25:22 -0500, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet>]
> | The bad news is that in 1996 (95?) when I wrote my quick and dirty
> | HTML guide I mentioned that fractal compression was coming to browsers.
> | I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> There's a big difference here. No successful fractal compression
> algoithm exist. There surely is a great potential here, but no
> algorithm for effectively turning an image into a set of fractal
> functions.
As I saw it, the problem was the decompression routine was free. The
compression routine was hardware only at about $300 or so. Out of my interest
and league for a one function card.
> JPEG2000 however uses well known algorithms, and an implementation
> already exists. It's written in Java, so you could have
> JPEG2000 images in your browser today.
In fact a quick look says I have such a plugin on Netscape but I don't
remember ever coming across such a file -- nor do I remember ever installing
such a thing so it likely came with.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most likely not. can't find a thing about it in the plugin
report on my machine. I also went to the Netscape Plugin
Finder page but found no reference.
Matt Giwer wrote:
> In fact a quick look says I have such a plugin on Netscape but I don't
> remember ever coming across such a file -- nor do I remember ever installing
> such a thing so it likely came with.
--
Mr. Art
"Often the appearance of reality is more important
than the reality of the appearance."
Bill DeWitt 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:00:14 +0000, Mike Williams <mik### [at] nospamplease>]
| The time taken to encode a file is quite noticeable - as much as 68
| seconds for an 800x600 image on my 500MHz machine, and probably quite a
| bit longer on the machines that were commonly available on 1995.
On top of that, it doesn't do a much better job than good old jpeg,
and I suspect jpeg2000 would be superior.
--
A penny for your thoughts.
Mine are more expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
