- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:01:10 +0200
- To: "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, "WAI List \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I've just been playing with Celinea, and haven't managed to achieve what you're looking for. The most realistic I've got around 50k appear like particularly bad 256-colour gifs. The big problem with the Celinea-produced images is that the flesh tones change abruptly rather than being smooth blends. It wasn't what I expected, but the more detailed bits appear a lot more acceptable. As SVG supports blends, I'm certain it will be possible to produce reasonable photo-realism in a small size, though a bit more number crunching is needed. I've not tried yet, but maybe doing some kind of half-toning/pixellating first may be a workaround. Cheers, Danny. --- Danny Ayers <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff> Idea maps for the Semantic Web http://www.isacat.net/ideagraph >-----Original Message----- >From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] >Sent: 29 July 2002 22:18 >To: Charles McCathieNevile >Cc: Danny Ayers; Jon Hanna; WAI List (E-mail) >Subject: Re: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? > > >chaals, > >the problem staring us in the face, is that jpegs dont scale, like vectors. >there are some vector faces here: >http://www.eboy.com/pages/works/vectors/vectors_09.html >they have a large file size(30K), and whilst probably recognisable are >certainly not photographic. > >Can anyone point to realistic vector portraits, with a small file size? > >jonathan > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> >To: "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com> >Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>; "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>; "WAI >List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:27 PM >Subject: Re: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? > > >> >> I think the situation is a bit more complex than you seem to suggest. >> >> There are technical reasons why jpeg doesn't have transparency, although >it >> does have good compression for photograph type images. GIF and >PNG, on the >> other hand, have transparency, but very poor compression for photographs >(by >> comparison). Essentially using these types of technology you have to make >a >> trade-off - you get one or the other. >> >> In some cases SVG should be used to replace PNG, JPEG or GIF images >> (perhaps most cases where png or gif are a good choice SVG is a better >> technical choice, and as user agents and authoring tools become more >common >> will be a better overall choice). >> >> In other cases SVG allows you to combine the best features of >SVG with the >> best features of JPEG (its compression for certain types of image) or >PNG/GIF >> (Hmmm. The more I think about it the more I wonder what you >really gain by >> keeping those formats. I am sure there are relevant cases though). >> >> I am not familiar with all the SVG authoring tools. However, to create a >tool >> which allows you to trace a section of a jpeg and say "show me just that >> section" isn't hard. Jim Ley has such a tool available, in an online >version >> written in SVG. (He uses it for providing more useful searchable >information >> about the bit of the image that you trace, but it can also provide a >clipped >> region). >> >> This thing can be animated or scripted to move around, and again Jim has >> demos. (Because these are things he works on for a bit of fun, the script >> changes from time to time. But I believe that he is happy for people to >use >> it). >> >> It is possible to use this to create a complete user interface, but it >takes >> some programming time - generally available at the whim of a >programmer or >by >> paying for it. >> >> >> Technically, following the approach Jim has taken is the best >method I can >> think of. In terms of getting a tool that makes it easy, it also >seems the >> best approach I can think of. If you want something that a person with >> relatively basic programming skills can work on, it is perhaps also the >best >> option. I you want me to program it for you then all you need to do is >find >> me the time ;-) >> >> Seriously, I appreciate that you want better tools. Me too. And world >peace. >> I think the best approach is to follow the mixed SVG/JPEG method, >especially >> if you want to do animation. >> >> Cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote: >> >> > >> >Yes Chaals, >> >but the unfortunate fact is that with a gif one can just choose a 'magic >> >wand tool' and the job is kind of done. >> >whereas for svg, one remains in a kind of fantasy land, ie highly work >> >intensive, and only partially meeting the needs*. >> > >> >Jon, >> >as far as png files go, as far as my limited (ie one file) test showed >there >> >was a 5-10% compression saving on gif, hardly comparable with ~300% for >> >jpeg. >> > >> >Surely it must be plain that with all the open source productivity >available >> >a concerted effort to either get the jpeg source released, reverse >engineer, >> >or create a new source is a reasonable project? >> >SVG is not intended to replace jpeg or gif as I understand it, or did I >get >> >this wrong to? >> > >> >thanks again >> > >> >Jonathan >> > >> >On degredation, transparency is lost, so all the tracing goes to waste. >> >Transparency is fairly fundamental to sprites. >> >Its this degredation, that is the concern, or more significantly, the >> >attitude to it, for meta-freaks. >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it> >> >To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>; "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie> >> >Cc: "WAI List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 7:27 PM >> >Subject: RE: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? >> > >> > >> >> >> >> <clippath d="[[here you need a path around the bit of the image that >> >> >you want - this can be generated quickly by tracing out the image, >> >> >> >> Amaya's good for that... >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles >phone: +61 409 >134 136 >> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 >38 78 22 >> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia >> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >France) >> > >
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 18:09:22 UTC