home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Amiga Plus 1995 #5 & #6
/
Amiga Plus CD - 1995 - No. 5 and 6.iso
/
pd
/
grafik
/
lightwave
/
lightwave-apr95
/
000347_owner-lightwave-l _Sat Apr 15 11:46:22 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-05-06
|
2KB
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave-l>
Received: by netcom19.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id KAA17791; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:24:46 -0700
Received: from mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id HAA11223; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 07:24:38 -0700
Received: by mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #20)
id m0s08k0-000DKUC; Sat, 15 Apr 95 09:22 CDT
Received: by oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
id 0D0HH009 Fri, 14 Apr 95 09:15:48
From: alan.chan@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
Message-ID: <9504140915.0D0HH00@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 09:15:48
Subject: RE: ARTIFACTING
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
> What do you mean when you say "the more computerish the image, the
> worse
> the artifacting"? What makes an image "computerish," by your
> definition? What would a "neutral" image be? I'm just trying to
> figure
> out where you're coming from. I plan on getting the PAR, and would
> like
> to avoid "computerish" images to (therefore) avoid excessive
> artifacting.
"Computerish" images are those that contain a lot of straight lines and
straight edges, like the stuff you'd see from older 3D programs. The rendering
algorithms in most 3D programs also produce a purer color gradient than, say, a
frame of a color gradient that you shot using a camera, because of the (albeit
miniscule) noise associated with "real-life" images. Therefore, you will also
notice that "computerish" images compress better than "real-life" images.... =)
AC