RE: WHOA!!...

[P3D Dan Shelley <dshelley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan Gross wrote:

> I agree with you, but what are the 
> advantages left from JPEG for image
> compression?

What does this question mean?? =)

> And, for high quality stereo pairs 
> you might want to use 1024X768 field
> pairs.  If people published their 
> JPEG and JPS images with 0% compression 
> and 2X1024X768 resolution, then it might 
> not be so bad.  But is that what people 
> are doing?

That depends... Come to my house, and see my personal 3D JPS images...
they are quite nice, and so HUGE that until someone steps up to the
plate to pay the bills for me, they will NOT be on my web site for
people to download. What it comes down to, is "Is it better to share 3D
pictures and information with the world on the Web, or just keep in
tight knit circles that do not easily grow the user base?" My site is
specifically for information sharing, and many people "find" it, and
want to know more. Part of that is image sharing in a variety of
formats. There has to be a balance between image size/quality, and
screen reolution DPI and data transmission costs. JPG allows for a high
color image at a relatively small size, even at high quality settings.

> How about alignment information?  Without 
> it, it's like handing someone two loose film 
> chips and asking them to look at the stereograph.  
> In that respect, two JPEG images are better than 
> one JPS pair.  At least you can input them into 
> an alignment utility without having to seperate
> them first.

?? Giving out two images is exactly like handing out two film chips. the
way to ensure the viewer is getting a correct image is to align it
properly, and present it as one image that is a pair. JPS works fine for
that. IF you want to split the pair and play with the alignment, you
still can... Just get the image, remane it to JPG, and split it... Where
is the problem?

> All of a sudden, a special format for stereo pairs 
> doesn't look so bad; High quality loss-less compression, 
> non-destructive cropping and alignment information, and 
> indelable copyright notification are important features 
> for commercial-quality stereo images IMHO.

Yes, that fine... But, this discussion was not about COMMERCIAL stereo
images... It was about anaglyphs on the web... I don't understand the
jump. 

> JPEG can be used effectively for anaglyphs, but be careful 
> about extending that to stereo pairs.

Yes, but extend that: ...if you want to sell the images, or use them for
commercial products. If you just want to put them on your web page, they
can be just fine. (IMO)

Dan Shelley
dshelley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dddesign.com/3dbydan


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