Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compression > #2770

Re: needs more jpeg

Show all headers | View raw

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
> I like how JPEG artificating, and image artificating in general, is now
> just called "jpeg".
> 
> Before: http://i.imgur.com/qwvccKV.gif
> After:  http://i.imgur.com/tRbyUE5.gif
> Also:   http://needsmorejpeg.com/
> 
> But I have no idea if peopla actually working in image compression know
> this colloquial usage.

I know "blocking artefacts" (do people really spell that with an 'i'?!?!),
although I first met them in video compression. However, in that context,
there was always a "deblocking" filter to reduce the effects.

Perhaps someone would like to dither (or worse, map to nearest) the same
images down to gif with a smaller palette  - that was the first experience
I had with shitty compressed images. JPEGs were a breath of fresh air
compared to those.

JPEG is only as good as the person using it - if you're left with a 
fuck-up, it's because you are a fuck-up.

Phil
-- 
The best part of re-inventing the wheel is that you get to pick how
many sides the new one has. -- egcagrac0 on SoylentNews

Back to comp.compression | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

needs more jpeg Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2015-01-07 00:39 +0000
  Re: needs more jpeg Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-09 11:57 +0200
    Re: needs more jpeg BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-10 00:06 -0600
    Re: needs more jpeg Borneq <borneq@antyspam.hidden.pl> - 2015-01-10 15:07 +0100
      Re: needs more jpeg BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-10 09:58 -0600
      Re: needs more jpeg Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2015-01-10 18:27 +0100

csiph-web