 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simple CSG roses with some rand thrown in for variety. They don't stand up
to close scrutiny, but good enough for government work...
BTW jpeg compression has been suprisingly unpleasant to them - is png
acceptable for the majority now?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'roses1.jpg' (274 KB)
Preview of image 'roses1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think PNG would be fine for everyone. It's the recommended replacement for
GIFs by the W3C and has built-in gamma correction. That's a great feature to
have considering the wildly varying gammas used in this group. :)
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlu couk> wrote in message
news:3a7ae96e@news.povray.org...
> Simple CSG roses with some rand thrown in for variety. They don't stand up
> to close scrutiny, but good enough for government work...
>
> BTW jpeg compression has been suprisingly unpleasant to them - is png
> acceptable for the majority now?
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
>
> Simple CSG roses with some rand thrown in for variety. They don't stand up
> to close scrutiny, but good enough for government work...
>
> BTW jpeg compression has been suprisingly unpleasant to them - is png
> acceptable for the majority now?
They are for me. :)
>
> [Image]
Very nice. Am I mistaken or you have been lured to the Dark Side (and
are now using radiosity)?
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreque | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
videotron.ca - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in message
news:3A7B4D13.9346C0E5@videotron.ca...
>
>
> Very nice. Am I mistaken or you have been lured to the Dark Side (and
> are now using radiosity)?
>
Not with this version - but there should be a radiosity version waiting for
me when I get back to work on Monday.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
Jpeg rules!
Francois Labreque wrote:
> BTW jpeg compression has been suprisingly unpleasant to them - is png
> acceptable for the majority now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reminds me of a carpet that my grandmar had in her old
house.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:16pm up 1 day, 14:54, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.03, 1.04
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:
: PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
Could you be more specific what is the problem with PNGs so that we could
perhaps find a solution for you?
Being able to easily view PNGs is nowadays handy since PNGs are gaining
popularity.
: Jpeg rules!
It depends.
With the correct compression settings (which for some odd reason are seldom
available in any image processing program; they only offer a quality setting
and that's it, although there are quite a lot more settings to fine-tune with
jpegs) even that image could look a lot better without the file being much
larger.
Jpegs are not good for every image, though. Sometimes you just get annoying
artifacts and there's little you can do about it.
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-02-02 21:29, D.J. Brown <ext### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
>news:3a7ae96e@news.povray.org...
>> BTW jpeg compression has been suprisingly unpleasant to them -
Have a look at
http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ/filesVFAQ.html#noartifactsinjpeg
>> is png acceptable for the majority now?
>
>I think PNG would be fine for everyone.
PNGs are for most scenes a lot larger than JPGs. So for those of us who
use modems and don't have a flat rate, they are a waste of resources and
money.
>It's the recommended replacement for GIFs by the W3C and has built-in
>gamma correction.
Yes, that's handy. PNG is a very nice file format, but the lack of a
lossy compression mode is really a disadvantage compared to JPG.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | which is our implementation of Linux.
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:
> : PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
>
> Could you be more specific what is the problem with PNGs so that we could
> perhaps find a solution for you?
> Being able to easily view PNGs is nowadays handy since PNGs are gaining
> popularity.
I have to spawn an external program to view PNGs as opposed to automatic
inline viewing support in Netscape (this is a minor irritation). Secondly
the program I currently have associated with PNGs under windows crashes
whenever someone posts a progressive PNG (which means I can't view it
period when this happens).
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp### [at] SiKituwsracat> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] tealhhjpat...
>
> Have a look at
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ/filesVFAQ.html#noartifactsinjpeg
>
Ah - this would seem to explain the problem. PSP has no options with regard
to super-sampling. I'll get hold of cjpeg and see if it fixes those
occasional images that don't respond well to standard jpeg conversion.
I'm a great respecter of file-size in posts which, all in all, is about the
only justification for jpegs. To be frank, given the POV is a fairly
technical, graphics orientated program, it seems hard to have much sympathy
for those who haven't got around to solving any technical problems to
viewing png's in this group.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hugo" wrote:
> PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
They're not OK with me either. I can view them in my news-reader easily, but
I never download them at all because they're too big. I don't mind some jpeg
artefacts.
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
the larger size of png's is ok with me. but I guess some people still pay
for internet by the minute or something crazy. It may be best to post a jpg
for size sake, then include a link to a png version.
On a side note, I've had good results with the GIMP when saving as png's.
Rune <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3a7d7c7b@news.povray.org...
> "Hugo" wrote:
> > PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
>
> They're not OK with me either. I can view them in my news-reader easily,
but
> I never download them at all because they're too big. I don't mind some
jpeg
> artefacts.
>
> Rune
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-02-03 21:57, Peter J. Holzer <hjp### [at] SiKituwsracat> wrote:
>On 2001-02-02 21:29, D.J. Brown <ext### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>It's the recommended replacement for GIFs by the W3C and has built-in
>>gamma correction.
>
>Yes, that's handy. PNG is a very nice file format, but the lack of a
>lossy compression mode is really a disadvantage compared to JPG.
Sorry for following up on my own post, but I have been browsing a bit on
www.libpng.org after posting.
Interestingly enough, there is now also a "JNG" format, which
encapsulates a JPEG stream in a PNG or MNG file format. Haven't looked
at it in detail, but this might be a way to combine the good compression
of JPEG with features (like gamma correction, gamut specifications,
alpha channel) of PNG and also use it for animations (in MNG).
See http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/spec/draft-jng.html for details.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | which is our implementation of Linux.
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-02-04 04:42, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Warp wrote:
>>
>> Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:
>> : PNG's are not okay with me. Please don't use them.
>>
>> Could you be more specific what is the problem with PNGs so that we could
>> perhaps find a solution for you?
>> Being able to easily view PNGs is nowadays handy since PNGs are gaining
>> popularity.
>
>I have to spawn an external program to view PNGs as opposed to automatic
>inline viewing support in Netscape (this is a minor irritation).
Interesting. Netscape has had PNG support since early 4.0 releases,
IIRC. It doesn't support all features (e.g. no alpha channel, and I
think, no gamma correction), but should be able to display "normal" PNGs
about as well as JPGs.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | which is our implementation of Linux.
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross Litscher wrote:
>
> the larger size of png's is ok with me. but I guess some people still pay
> for internet by the minute or something crazy.
_Some_ people? I wonder...
But I admit it's crazy.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross Litscher wrote:
>
> the larger size of png's is ok with me. but I guess some people still pay
> for internet by the minute or something crazy.
Some countries - namely the UK - charge per the minute for local phone
calls, so for example a Brit might have "unlimited net access" but still
end up paying for the time spent online.
And I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't forbidden by law, the north
american phone companies would gladly do the same.
> It may be best to post a jpg
> for size sake, then include a link to a png version.
Fine with me.
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreque | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
videotron.ca - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Some countries - namely the UK - charge per the minute for local phone
> calls, so for example a Brit might have "unlimited net access" but still
> end up paying for the time spent online.
lucky for us some companies are finally offering true unlimited access with
no phone bill :)
www.madasafish.com for those who care
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3a7e7ea5@news.povray.org...
>
> > Some countries - namely the UK - charge per the minute for local phone
> > calls, so for example a Brit might have "unlimited net access" but still
> > end up paying for the time spent online.
>
> lucky for us some companies are finally offering true unlimited access
with
> no phone bill :)
>
Well, I've had off-peak (weekend and evening) toll-free access for a few
months now. I'm only just learning to let this influence the way I use the
net. I still tend to plan my online access before logging on, so as to limit
my time online.
That aside, small file size is still appreciated. I'll wait five days for a
render, but it doesn't seem to have improved my patience elsewhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
