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 MAA15808 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:37:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA036870394; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:39:54 -0800
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:39:54 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <199603071719.JAA02132@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 continued...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
> The problem is NOT the chroma filter setting. I've played with
>it, but there has been no change. Get this file (stills2.lha) and let me
>know how these frames look on your PAR (Amiga)... Tell me if you see a
>difference between the IFF and the PAR frame. ( The IFF should look
>washed )
Hello! No one seems to be paying attention to the theory that compressing
the frames twice will cause noticeable degradation of the image... is it
just me, or am I missing something obvious?
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