> I'm generally opposed to JPEG output, because it's lossy.  Imagine
> if you just finished a 3-day render only to discover that the
> quality level on the output wasn't sufficient.  Who would you
> blame, yourself or the guy who chose the default quality level?

The poor dope who chose that setting.

> I know *I* don't want that kind of support headache.  Besides,
> what does JPEG gain you that you can't get with PNG?

Much greater compression, with no apparent loss to quality (at least from
Photoshop with max quality).

> On the other hand, using JPEG images as imagemaps, bumpmaps,
> and so on is a pretty good idea.

It's an excellent idea, especially for cross-program collaboration. Let's
say I want to check out a scene made with Max, or Lightwave, or any of the
others, and the textures are JPEG. Why the heck would I want to convert
them to TGA or PNG to use them, if they'll look the same and use more of
my precious HD space? I could just convert the scene file, and the
textures would work right away.

> Speaking for myself only, of course, as the current maintainer
> of the superpatch.

I wanted to mention that in my message. I'd hate to put more worries into
your life. I really mean that. I wouldn't want to scare you away from your
creation. =)

BTW, did you visit the site, and check out the other features? I really
like the compressed file idea. For the distribution of scenes, it is very
good. I would prefer ZIP or RAR compression, though, but that's just my
two cents.

--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB

Graphics rendered
by the Dreamachine.

Post a reply to this message