Ron Parker wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:40:10 -0400, TonyB wrote:
> >This is extremely cool. This MUST be included into POV-Ray 3.5 or 4.0
> >(or at least the SuperPatch). =)
>
> 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?
> I know *I* don't want that kind of support headache.  Besides,
> what does JPEG gain you that you can't get with PNG?

Hi Ron,

I dunno if you read the IMP (the Internet Movie Project) mailing lists,
but there has been a wide discussion about this issue.
Of course it can be a headache maintaining such a version and getting
complaints from reckless users, but with proper warnings (in the message
windows when the option is selected for instance as well as in the docs
and whereever the mention of JPEG is made), well with proper disclaimers
it should diminish negative feedback.
On the user's side, JPEG would make for a quicker way to get out small
byte sized images with more pixels (avoid one batch processing, one
utility less to get for the layman) and it would be way sufficient for use
in some image maps that are generated with POV.
Not all output has to be A1 perfect and not all image maps need to be A1
accurate. JPEG has positive points as well as negative points, why ignore
the positive ?


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

Do you really have to maintain and try and fix everything ?
Can you not delegate the work relating to patches by others to such others
?

Only trying to accomodate what I would like to see in POV with what you
can do, and hell do I know time is precious !

Regards,
Al.

--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :

To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message