Seeing as how some people liekd them (Cars)

Redwizard · #1 05-24-2005, 02:34 AM

Here is another car recolour/mod thing. I will upload now the image which I used to photo edit, and the image I turned it into. I made this for a friend of mine, she loves pink. personally, i do not. Enjoy.
I only posted this up mainly because i remember Zero Hour saying something about liking them a while ago.
edit - Jpegs

Kaimetsu · #2 05-24-2005, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redwizard

I am extremely sorry for the file size. By decreasing them to 256 colours, the quality would have a great impact upon it.

Dude, this is why we have jpegs.

davidpsy · #3 05-24-2005, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Dude, this is why we have jpegs.

Jpegs usually degrade the quality as well. However it depends what quality of Jpeg you use.

Zero Hour · #4 05-24-2005, 03:26 AM

Dude, I read the title and was like "Some people?", and new it was me. Then you said it was me and I was like "Woa, flattered.". Cool

I like your recolors.

Nitkizi · #5 05-24-2005, 03:32 AM

The re-colour job is well done, but I think you went over-board with the light effects on the headlights and the reflection on the side mirror.

Zero Hour · #6 05-24-2005, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitkizi

The re-colour job is well done, but I think you went over-board with the light effects on the headlights and the reflection on the side mirror.

Yea, he always does cool recolors, though this is the first time I've seen him go ape**** with effects.

Hiro · #7 05-24-2005, 04:38 AM

Still cool.

Kaimetsu · #8 05-24-2005, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidpsy

Jpegs usually degrade the quality as well

Not to the extent that it's noticeable.

davidpsy · #9 05-24-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Not to the extent that it's noticeable.

If its a very poor quality jpeg its noticeable.

Kaimetsu · #10 05-24-2005, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidpsy

If its a very poor quality jpeg its noticeable.

Notice that you used the word 'usually'.

Most uses of jpeg compression do not produce noticeable artifacts.

Splke · #11 05-24-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Most uses of jpeg compression do not produce noticeable artifacts.

How would it produce a noticeable "artifact"? Explain your use of the word, cause it looks like you just took the piss out of your arguement there.

davidpsy · #12 05-24-2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splke

How would it produce a noticeable "artifact"? Explain your use of the word, cause it looks like you just took the piss out of your arguement there.

I believe he is refering to a degrade in quality as a "noticable artifact".

Crono · #13 05-24-2005, 08:34 AM

light's too bright.

CheeToS2 · #14 05-24-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splke

How would it produce a noticeable "artifact"? Explain your use of the word, cause it looks like you just took the piss out of your arguement there.

Artifacts are noticable blemishes (if you want to call them that) on an image. The higher you compress an image with jpeg, the more artifacts you'll notice. I've attached an example of what happens as you compress an image more and more with jpeg; the differences you see over time are artifacts.

EDIT: Made it so you can see the artifacts themselves on the right side, the original image is in the middle.

Splke · #15 05-24-2005, 04:40 PM

Oh, makes some sense then.