 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@) nolights.de> wrote in
news:40367da0@news.povray.org:
>> And as I recall, Windows only accepts BMP files for this, right?
>> Stupid...Mac OS allows anything QuickTime can open: JPEG, PNG, GIF,
>> TIFF, etc.
>
> Yup. I know, it sucks. Linux accepts all kinds of images as well,
> which is kinda fun, especially with neato effects. :-) But most of my
> software requires Windows, and I'm not yet that much into Linux as if
> I could switch.
>
>> But the smaller file size isn't a benefit?
>
> It would be, if it'd be needed. I've got several GBs to spare, so
> rendering at BMP isn't a threat. Additionally, I do almost no
> post-processing on my images, so I can just keep the source-code. Most
> of my images render in under a few hours, so that's sufficient. Those
> that don't... Well, just a little more patience required. That aside,
> I regularly update my hardware, so after a year or so, images render
> even faster than initially. In a sense, I don't have to keep as many
> images as I do, and for lazy reasons I keep them in BMP to use them as
> wallpapers.
>
> There are good arguments to use a different format, I don't deny that.
> It's just much easier this way in my current PC situation. Why go
> through the hassle of converting images everytime I want a new
> wallpaper? It's that simple. :-)
>
> That all aside: is the PNG compression Povray uses the optimum? I've
> found that I could use Paint Shop Pro to convert the images to even
> smaller PNG images and didn't notice any loss. Maybe I should
> experiment again and see why PSP was able to reduce the size, but
> perhaps there's an issue with output from POV-Ray to disk that can't
> be overcome that easily?
>
IIRC, POV does line by line compression, and PSP compresses all lines at
once.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2004-02-19 06:43:
> In article <40348604@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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
Looking back at old posts.
With the free jpeg2000 you can save only small images (640*480 or less). For anything
larger, you
need to pay a licencing fee.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <41e87f8a$1@news.povray.org>,
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> With the free jpeg2000 you can save only small images (640*480 or less). For
> anything larger, you need to pay a licencing fee.
Yuck. Is this for commercial software only, or for all software?
Well, I think all the important LZW patents have expired now, so aside
from PNG there's LZW compressed TIFF, which got slightly better
compression than PNG on most of the images I tested, and is quite a bit
more flexible.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-01-16 21:39:
> In article <41e87f8a$1@news.povray.org>,
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>
>
>>With the free jpeg2000 you can save only small images (640*480 or less). For
>>anything larger, you need to pay a licencing fee.
>
>
> Yuck. Is this for commercial software only, or for all software?
>
For all of them! Pay or freeware. And the licence is prety expencive.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Well, I think all the important LZW patents have expired now, so aside
> from PNG there's LZW compressed TIFF, which got slightly better
> compression than PNG on most of the images I tested, and is quite a bit
> more flexible.
There's no one single way of making lzw encoding (even though the result
is decodable with any regular lzw decoder). Some programs do a better job
than another. You should definitely not trust some random image editor to
give you the best possible png compression ratio because they usually don't.
Run the png through pngcrush and advpng and then compare it to the tiff.
--
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: 17 Jan 2005 08:08:40
Message: <41ebb8d8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <41eb998e$1@news.povray.org> , Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet>
wrote:
> Christopher James Huff nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-01-16 21:39:
>> In article <41e87f8a$1@news.povray.org>,
>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With the free jpeg2000 you can save only small images (640*480 or less). For
>>>anything larger, you need to pay a licencing fee.
>>
>>
>> Yuck. Is this for commercial software only, or for all software?
>>
> For all of them! Pay or freeware. And the licence is prety expencive.
I don't know where you got this information, but it is incorrect:
<http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&question_id=q3f042a68b1081
>
Baseline JPEG 2000 is free just like baseline JPEG is free.
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 <41ebabb6@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> There's no one single way of making lzw encoding (even though the result
> is decodable with any regular lzw decoder). Some programs do a better job
> than another. You should definitely not trust some random image editor to
> give you the best possible png compression ratio because they usually don't.
PNG is not LZW, it's the older LZ77 compression, which was unencumbered
by patents when it was chosen. I was comparing LZ77 PNGs with LZW TIFFs.
The TIFFs came out consistently smaller...not much, but not by an
insignificant amount either.
> Run the png through pngcrush and advpng and then compare it to the tiff.
I did use pngcrush, but not advpng. The PNG images were compressed about
as well as is possible, the TIFF images were unoptimized.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-01-17 08:08:
> In article <41eb998e$1@news.povray.org> , Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher James Huff nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-01-16 21:39:
>>
>>>In article <41e87f8a$1@news.povray.org>,
>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>With the free jpeg2000 you can save only small images (640*480 or less). For
>>>>anything larger, you need to pay a licencing fee.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yuck. Is this for commercial software only, or for all software?
>>>
>>
>>For all of them! Pay or freeware. And the licence is prety expencive.
>
>
> I don't know where you got this information, but it is incorrect:
> <http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&question_id=q3f042a68b1081
>
>
> Baseline JPEG 2000 is free just like baseline JPEG is free.
>
> Thorsten
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
At least this one is asking a fee, whitch cam be steep:
http://www.luratech.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryKey=27&OnlineShopId=798491105998585283
Up to US$8400
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: JPG-output with povray for windows v3.5
Date: 17 Jan 2005 17:58:17
Message: <41ec4309@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <41ec3601$1@news.povray.org> , Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet>
wrote:
> At least this one is asking a fee, whitch cam be steep:
>
http://www.luratech.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryKey=27&OnlineShopId=798491105
998585283
>
> Up to US$8400
It is not a *license* for JPEG 2000 they are selling. All they are selling
is their library to read/write JPEG 2000 files. That is something entirely
different.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
