Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by netcom6.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id MAA23655; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 12:05:12 -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 MAA05699 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 12:04:42 -0700
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id MAA04264 for lightwave-l@netcom.com; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 12:04:41 -0700
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: artifacting
Lines: 33
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 95 12:04:40 PDT
Message-ID: <9504151204.1.4137@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
>Jeric@cup.portal.com responded to Adrian Onson thusly:
>-> The PAR >>>may<<< produce artifacting on
>-> specific image types, but generally produces wonderful images. To ge
>-> the more "computerish" the image, the worst the artifacting. (Yet an
>-> reason to try for naturalism in your animations.)
>->
>-> Artifacts are simply errors in the picture, generated by the
>-> pression algorithm.
>->
>What do you mean when you say "the more computerish the image, the worse
>the artifacting"?
Using my PAR, gradient surfaces/background sometimes exhibit
significant to major artifacting. Also, fine detailing, finer than one would
see in a camera generated image, also exhibit artifacting.
Line drawings are also subject to this.
Note that I use my PAR for virtually ALL ( 99.9%+)my output, so it is
really not a major problem and it should not dissuade you from purchasing one.