Re: Anaglyphs

[P3D D Cootey <shmoobee@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:59:06 -0500 P3D Webmaster 
<stereoscopic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>Ole....
>
>I don't believe anyone has made the point that images presented on the
>web
>are formatted as jpg or gif.  If you compare a tiff file of an 
>anaglyph
>to a jpg version derived from the same file, there's a very noticable
>difference in the stereoscopic effect between the two.  There seems to
>be a sacrifice in sharpness and depth information when  compressing 
>and
>decompresing anaglyph images.  Unfortunately, the nature of the web
>makes small, compressed graphic files a necessity.

It amazes me how JPEG gets such a bum rap all the time.  The problem
isn't with the technology, as you probably know, but with the layman's
need to compress the living snot out of the image.  I've worked with
digital imaging for years and it takes some pretty severe compression
ratios to make an image awful.  I usually found compression ratios of 2
to 1 or 5 to 1 to often not bear any noticeable image degradation to the
eye (even 15 to 1 in some images...).  However, typical users love 25 to
1 compression for some reason. ;)  That's like video tape quality at 6
hour speed, which, incidentally, is lousy for anaglyph viewing.  I taped
the Sabrina episode in 3D last spring and was disappointed at the loss of
depth during playback.

(Does anybody have the Drew Carey Show and Home Improvement's 3D episodes
on tape, btw?  Those were the best, IMO, and I wish I had copied them...)


Douglas "D" Cootey - Elfin Graphics
7777777777777777777777777777777
http://users.itsnet.com/~bug/absent.html
                              777777777777777777777777777777
"Using my Nishika makes me a four eyed 3D geek!!" 


------------------------------