In article <3e1813fe@news.povray.org>, orp### [at] btinternetcom says...
> > The fact that they insist on using jpg or similar lossy formats for
> > digital cameras I find completely insane and it isn't all that great for
> > rendering either, unless you specifically need to save space. In the case
> > of stereograms it is almost certain to be lethal.
> 
> Yeah, I know... (But then, *my* digital camera is so lame it probably
> doesn't make any odds. *sigh*) And it would kill the sterograms.
> 
Yeah. We have one of the lame ones too. Interestingly enough there are 
algorithms out for magnification of images that look nearly as good at 3 
times the original size, but all the junk they give you with the cameras 
an which is used standard in editing programs still rely almost entirely 
on the '200% = each pixel gets copied to form 4 pixels' method. :p 
Between that and the unfortunate tendency of even high end problems to 
crash and 'then' inform you that you didn't have the memory to do 
something... Lost about 20 pictures one time trying to adjust the 
intensity of part of the image in one to bring out details. I hadn't 
saved any of the files first. But the portfolio ones that come with the 
cameras (and do auto save) suck imho. Oh, well..

Post a reply to this message