On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:25:27 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>
>Glen,
>
> Attached you will find a small jpg image_map (ugly.jpg) and a
>rendered image (GBerry.jpg) illustrating the undersirable conseq-
>uenses of using .jpg images as an input format. 

Well, those certainly are bad. However, they are also not typical
examples of a sane JPEG input image. Everyone should know that the
simple image you presented would be better represented in the PNG
format. When I talk about using JPEG for input, I mean fo use it for
those types of images it works best on, particularly on typical
continous-tone photographic images  -  and no, a photograph of four,
colored, textureless squares wouldn't count.   :)

I also intend to use JPEG images that have been compressed using
appropriate quality settings. Compressing the image too much would
make it unsuitable as well.

It's a trivial matter to come up with images that look miserable with
JPEG compression, especially *poor* JPEG compression. However, that
shouldn't preclude the use of other images that *are* suited to JPEG
compression, and have been compressed with appropriage settings.

> It is not at all unusual to find "texture" sites on the web with
>extremly poor quality jpg's but some of them are just attactive
>enough that you might attemt to use them anyway. 

Well you shouldn't use poor quality images for input. If you do, it's
your own fault. However, not all JPEG images are of poor quality. 
I could also find you some horrible looking PNG, BMP, GIF, and TARGA
images if I wanted to. Would that be reason enough to ban those
formats as well?

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message