EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/000387_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Sat Oct 7 13:07:32 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 2KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA245656451; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:07:32 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from access1.digex.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA245596443; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:07:23 -0700
Received: (from erniew@localhost) by access1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22881 ; for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 15:59:56 -0400
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 15:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ernie Wright <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: IFF VS. Flyer Clip Quality ?
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

CEVAnim wrote:

> How bad is the compression on IFF.  Has anyone made a comparison of
> playback to tape using the same anim. rendered to IFF and converted to
> Flyer vs. just going direct to Flyer.

IFF is lossless.  You can copy IFFs as many times as you want, and the
last copy will be identical to the original.  IFF frames saved from LW
should also be identical to the contents of LW's image buffer, so there's
no reason to think that rendering directly vs. converting later makes any
difference at all.

- Ernie

--
Ernie Wright <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]