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] tomandlucouk> 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