[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Many people have been expressing there opinion , and there has been
truth in all those opinions. However the comments below , comparing
compressed moving pictures of "optimum quality" with a jpeg image , in
my humble opinion do not hold a valid argument. I think compression
should be avoided at all costs.
 How many of you have strived to improve/eliminate the artifacts of
noise reducers? Even now noise reduction is used by many of you very
sparingly to avoid artifacts.Why bother if the end result is going to be
compressed and have similar artifacts introduced. How many of your
clients have said "no , i dont want standards converted pictures"
because of , again, similar artifacts being introduced.   etc etc.

>  compression.
> But is that a bad thing? Personally, I don't think so. Using digital
> 'photographs' as an example, an image that has been professionally
> photographed and manipulated uncompressed can be delivered as a JPEG
> quite happily, now, across the internet. And lossy, psychovisual
> compression schemes like JPEG afford a sizeable amount of protection
> to
> the originator because they look fine until you want to manipulate
> them
> in some way. So the reciever can really only use the material in the
> way
> it was intended to be used i.e. look at it. Video compression schemes
> will become more and more powerful until HD, progressive video can go
> across the internet, never mind ATSC or DVB bandwidths.

         Thanks to Innovation TK for support of the TIG in 1997
      TIG subscriber count is 857 on Wed Oct  1 06:31:49 PDT 1997
   archives and much more at http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
     mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
        'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe