Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by mail2.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id AAA23348; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:14:13 -0700
From: Jeric@cup.portal.com
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA08624 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:13:27 -0700
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id AAA06979 for lightwave-l@netcom.com; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:13:26 -0700
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: RE:Artifacting
Lines: 30
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 00:13:25 PDT
Message-ID: <9504140013.2.6695@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Feliciano di Giorgio writes:>
>Sorry, but as good as the PAR is (and it really is good), there ALWAYS
>are compression artifacts present.
You are absolutely correct. My meaning was, in more naturalistic
imagery the artifacting is essentially trivial or nominal, and
does not interfere with using the image, or making money.
For instance, one of the biggest failures of the PAR is displaying
dark-blue to black gradients. I live in fear that some client
will insist on such a background, and I'll have to single frame
the whole damn animation.
Surprisingly, no one ever has, and I've been able to weasel around
the (slight) limitations of the PAR quite successfully.
Hopefully, the "new PAR" will obviate such considerations.