 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: JPG-output with povray for windows v3.5
Date: 18 Feb 2004 17:23:27
Message: <4033e5df$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4033dd04$1@news.povray.org> , Marc Roth <mar### [at] rothconsult com>
wrote:
> trust me, i have to use it every day... the problem is, that the walls
> in our house are to thick for it to work properly... i made a check via
> the ping utility over a week about 20% of the pings didn't arrive
> but i do agree that it *should* be as reliable as any other network in a
> more common situation ;)
A ping is not a reliable way to check network reliability. Your problems
are more likely due to faulty or incompatible equipment with unreliable
drivers (especially many recent cheap WLAN cards tend to have this problem).
They do not create a WLAN at all. Throwing away the noname cards and base
station and replacing them with brand name equipment will get rid of such
problems. Really!
Some of those noname cards cannot keep a network up even if they sit next to
each other! With brand name hardware it will work just fine and signals
pass at least through two 18 cm reinforced concrete floors and three 25 cm
brick walls (my home setup). Or work 70 m away from your home. At least
they did for me in the past four years. And in many different locations and
setups it also works reliably. You really need reliable hardware, that is
all ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4033c8f1@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > The reduction in file size is less than
> > with lossy formats like JPEG
>
> Are there any other lossy formats than JPEG? ;)
MPEG?
Okay, there's no other lossy still image format in common use. Someone
mentioned GIF...it isn't lossy, it's just really limited in the number
of colors it can represent. I can't think of any other lossy formats,
but I know they exist, so I didn't rule them out.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Warp who wrote:
> Are there any other lossy formats than JPEG? ;)
I believe it's possible to save images as single-frame lossy animations
in various formats, and there are fractal image compression algorithms
like FIF (Fractal Image File).
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> GIF?
GIF is a lossless format.
Granted, it only supports 256 colors, but that doesn't make it a lossy
image format. That makes it only an image format which supports 256 colors.
You can't control the quality of the "lossiness" because there isn't any.
Anything you store in the gif file can be retrieved exactly. Its color
limitation is not a method to pack the image smaller, it's just a limitation.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> I believe it's possible to save images as single-frame lossy animations
> in various formats
It would be a keyframe, and AFAIK keyframes are basically a JPEG (more
or less) of the first original frame.
>, and there are fractal image compression algorithms
> like FIF (Fractal Image File).
Agreed, but how many image viewers/manipulation programs have you seen
supporting that? ;)
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> MPEG?
If I'm not completely mistaken, an I frame of an mpeg file (which a
1-frame mpeg would be) is basically a jpeg (more or less).
> I can't think of any other lossy formats,
> but I know they exist, so I didn't rule them out.
JPEG2000 is the next version of JPEG (and certainly better), even though
I don't know if you can call it a "different format from JPEG"...
Does anyone have any idea why JPEG2000 has not widespread even though
it's so much better than JPEG? I have always wondered this and found it
a big pitty.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: JPG-output with povray for windows v3.5
Date: 19 Feb 2004 06:43:38
Message: <4034a16a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40348604@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> JPEG2000 is the next version of JPEG (and certainly better), even though
> I don't know if you can call it a "different format from JPEG"...
It is really much different. the formats only really have the name in
common.
> Does anyone have any idea why JPEG2000 has not widespread even though
> it's so much better than JPEG? I have always wondered this and found it
> a big pitty.
The compression algorithm is far more complex. And I am not even sure there
is a license free way to use it. Either way, there is no good, portable
library to read/write it yet. The IJG JPEG library is kind of a "standard"
for JPEG on the other hand.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40344a95$1@news.povray.org>, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
> True, it depends on how many colors you're trying to represent. Given
> this is a ray-tracing newsgroup and GIF only supports 256 colors, I
> think it's safe to say it's lossy. ;-)
Not lossy, just very coarsely quantized. If you call that lossy, than
every possible representation of the image is lossy. The term "lossy"
refers to the compression algorithm used, and the method used by GIF
lets you retrieve exactly the same values you put in: it's lossless.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: JPG-output with povray for windows v3.5
Date: 19 Feb 2004 08:07:32
Message: <4034b514@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > True, it depends on how many colors you're trying to represent. Given
> > this is a ray-tracing newsgroup and GIF only supports 256 colors, I
> > think it's safe to say it's lossy. ;-)
>
> Not lossy, just very coarsely quantized. If you call that lossy, than
> every possible representation of the image is lossy. The term "lossy"
> refers to the compression algorithm used, and the method used by GIF
> lets you retrieve exactly the same values you put in: it's lossless.
I think he was attempting to add some humor into his reply: since we're
dealing with POV-Ray and thus, mainly 16 to 32 bit images, 256 colors would
be a loss, and thus, GIF would be "lossy" for saving the output-images.
Technically, you're right, on a humoristic level, he's right. :-)
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 <tim.nikias (@) nolights.de> wrote:
> I think he was attempting to add some humor into his reply: since we're
> dealing with POV-Ray and thus, mainly 16 to 32 bit images, 256 colors would
> be a loss, and thus, GIF would be "lossy" for saving the output-images.
Then every existing image format is lossy because POV-Ray calculates
the color components as 32-bit floats. Converting them eg. to
8 bits-per-component or even 16 bits-per-component image (eg. PNG)
is lossy.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
