Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.4/8.7.4-MZ) with ESMTP id VAA19176 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:44:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA261156758; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:45:58 -0800
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:45:58 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <199603070225.SAA03102@holonet.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: jprusins@cybergrafix.com (John Prusinski)
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Par Problem...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
> If I export one of the frames as IFF, and then
>import it RIGHT back, the frame looks faded. On the other hand, if the
>frame is exported as a PAR (image format), and then reimported, the frame
>DOES NOT look faded.
I have an Amiga PAR, and while I'm not positive on this, my best guess would be:
when you import frames into the PAR, it compresses them with Motion JPEG,
which is a lossy format (you decide how much loss with the Block Limit and
Quality settings). When you export them to a standard format (like IFF), it
must decompress the frames first; it does the best it can, but it can't
restore the information it threw out when you first imported it. Then when
you reimport it, it compresses it again, so the resultant frame is basically
the equivalent of a video tape that has been dubbed down a couple of
generations. When you export in PAR format, the frame remains compressed,
and when you re-import it, ti recognizes the PAR format and doesn't
recompress it, so the quality remains identical.
Just my NSHO,
John.
________________________
John Prusinski/CyberGrafix
jprusins@cybergrafix.com
http://www.cybergrafix.com/
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein