in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'aniv.jpg' (41 KB)

Preview of image 'aniv.jpg'

perhaps, you better like it like that...

42641ca2@news.povray.org...
> in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'aniv.png' (488 KB)

Preview of image 'aniv.png'

JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
and you'll get good results.

Best,

    S.


Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
ste### [at] stevenpigeoncom
ste### [at] videotronca


"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message 
news:42641d15@news.povray.org...
> perhaps, you better like it like that...

> news: 42641ca2@news.povray.org...
>> in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
news:42643404$1@news.povray.org...

>
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.
>
> Best,
>
>     S.
>

Even higher yeilds substantially better file sizes. Staring from his PNG,
97% quality settings in GIMP gave me a JPEG file size of 189kb and just
barely blurred the border between red and brown. No noticeable color
artifacts internal to a color. Where there is red, it's all a smooth
gradient. Nothing even near to the degraded quality of the original low
quality post, very similar to the quality of the PNG.

-r

Post a reply to this message

> 
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.

Oh...  we've been trying to explain that to him for
about 5 years (at least).  Waste of time.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

I usually use 95% for digital photography, png
for lossless encoding of renders. Here, I'd still
post them as jpg.

But you're right. Some jpg engines are better
than others at the same quality rate (say, comparing
various 95% results for the same picture with
different software.) I would have expected the
quality to be rather similar, but it's not always.

-- 
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
ste### [at] stevenpigeoncom
ste### [at] videotronca
"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:42643d70@news.povray.org...
> "Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
> news:42643404$1@news.povray.org...

>>
>> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
>> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
>> and you'll get good results.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>     S.
>>
>
> Even higher yeilds substantially better file sizes. Staring from his PNG,
> 97% quality settings in GIMP gave me a JPEG file size of 189kb and just
> barely blurred the border between red and brown. No noticeable color
> artifacts internal to a color. Where there is red, it's all a smooth
> gradient. Nothing even near to the degraded quality of the original low
> quality post, very similar to the quality of the PNG.
>
> -r
>
>

Post a reply to this message

42643404$1@news.povray.org...

>
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.

if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who likes 
this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the same.

if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...

Post a reply to this message

news:
> Oh...  we've been trying to explain that to him for
> about 5 years (at least).  Waste of time.
>
> Fabien.

je n'aime pas les gens plus royalistes que le roi : le serveur ne refuse pas 

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:15:24 +0200, Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:

> if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who
> likes this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the
> same.
> 
> if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...

Apparently you've never used an offline reader.  Just an observation, but
it's foolish to assume that everyone reads news the same way you do.

What's so hard about being considerate of other people?  I have a fast
connection, but I have to admit that with this thread, I saw the same
image posted twice, and I wasted time trying to find the differences (as
my reader doesn't give me the filenames).  So thanks for the 2 minutes of
my time you wasted by posting the same image twice in different formats.

It sure seems to me that the request for files posted to this server to be
limited is a reasonable request.  If I were the news server admin, I'd
probably enforce a posting size limitation just because I know there are
people who only think about themselves, and not about the people they are
impacting by their thoughtless actions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In other words "It's not my problem, it's yours".

And people think Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and inconsiderate.

No need to reply, you've been added to my twit filter.  Have a nice day.

Jim

Post a reply to this message