POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : marbles - [16-bit JPEG2000] : Re: jpg version Server Time
12 Aug 2024 03:21:10 EDT (-0400)
  Re: jpg version  
From: IMBJR
Date: 7 Mar 2004 08:53:09
Message: <pfam40tm500kj4hb7ve5b0nrpct1cirsgj@4ax.com>
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:08:30 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:

>> >All I saw was artifacts in the JPEF image caused by too low quality
>setting.
>> >Increase the setting and the artifacts can be mostly eliminated. And
>there
>> >is no "drop in colour-depth" when viewed with 99,99% of current
>videocards.
>>
>> That's because the person who posted the JPEG decided to effectly
>> deface the image with use of shoddy compression settings. The impudent
>> cheek!
>>
>> READ THE THREAD FIRST. Bloody hell. I'm also talking about gradient
>> banding here. Get the facts in first, eh? Colour depth is not much of
>> an issue here because of the hardware, but gradient banding is.
>
>You wrote: "you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a drop in
>colour-depth". And if you agree thatmost people can only see 8bit/pixel
>because of the hardware, then the banding is not an issue of file format but
>the way you generated/converted the file. Had you applied the dithering
>yourseld, there would not be any problem.

Dear me, I thought your lazy mind had decided to duck out of this
thread, but here you quack on again.

Why should I dither when I have the ability to attempt a true
representation of 16-bit? Again, read the fucking thread properly.

>
>Severi

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.