This is where Png comes in, I would say. A nearly flawless form of Jpeg
is going to be close to the same file size as the average Png, I would
hazard to guess. Or rather the difference becomes not so great and the
chance of a Jpeg becoming "lossy" is very real.


"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
> 
> Alan Kong wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 21:16:54 +0100, Alain CULOS <ZAl### [at] bigfootcom>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I do use PNG almost exclusively myself, then use third party tools to
> > >convert/crop/rescale/... But there is a specific case where jpeg output might be
> > >desirable :
> > >
> > >Project :
> > >The IMP (Internet Movie Project)
> >
> >   For consistency's sake I can see why you would want a standardized output,
> > since so many individuals would be generating the frames.
> >
> > >- JPEG settings will be chosen at POV level, thus reducing the risk of people
> > >tweaking with them in external utilities - this will ensure better consistency
> > >through out.
> >
> >   This makes sense for this project. Artifacts from some frames not being
> > saved at the optimum quality setting will be less noticeable in an MPEG
> > animation as compared to a single image.
> >
> 
> Actually, this is where for the IMP I would like to avoid JPEG. Taking a source
> image through one lossy compression before going through another often degrades the
> final quality and/or increases the file sizes. In early work producing MPEGs, this
> was one of the things that actually did matter. The cleaner the sources, the better
> the MPEG, and JPEG was to be avoided.
> 
> At some point, one person mentioned that Antz used JPEG compression on their frames
> before storage. Probably the main difference is that Antz was going out to film
> recorders while the IMP's output is most likely going to go out to MPEG.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message