Making SL a better place READ IT!

To avoid blurriness make sure at least 1 dimension, if not both, is a power of 2 (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 etc). All images at somepoint in the conversion are scaled to a power of 2.

So ifyou have a 32 bit image (8bits/color +8alpha) and you compress that, you think it should be the same size as a 24bit image (8bits/color)? I admit to having little knowledge of how the jpeg2000 compression works. It is possible however that it treats all tga's as if they did have an alpha layer, as if they are 32 bit, and thus creates larger files from them. That is one possible issue.

The other is the double lossyness someone else mentioned - also means double compression! Well its not quite double. Lossy compression means that some of the image data is just plain thrown away to make the image byte size smaller. The image loses quality and there is no way to go back to the exact original picture (don't let any sci-fi show tell you different). That means that if you perform lossy compressions twice you will throw away data twice, the image will be worse quality and the image will be smaller in byte size.

I have always thought my tga's looked much better uploaded than my jpegs did.

As for the textures Nash, I feel using no textures so far allows be to build all my objects better. I can see where the objects come out at edges and I can see how the light blends with the objects as a total link (shadows and all), also I don't need to download anything except for the object. Just a nice plan colour is good for me.

PS. - Spell the word anyway you want, it does not make a difference when you say it, why should it make a difference how u spell it.

Ah A wise man! It's true Jason, we shouldn't be fighting about this! (The videos are still really funny!)

bump

Actually Ama, even if that's true sometimes (maybe you've seen exceptions), it's definitely not always true. I think whoever said that a TGA compresses better to jpg than a jpg recompresses to jpg was right AFAIK.

I just tried recompressing a jpg and the size actually *increased* by a (basically) insignificant amount...but it definitely didn't compress more.

Original file size on disk: 35.9 KB (36,792 bytes)
File size on disk after recompress: 35.9 KB (36,857 bytes)

Not too suprised, jpeg is weird like that.

I worked professionally for awhile with image compression and crap like this (although it's been awhile), it's a pretty interesting field.

it is true that jpgs upload noticably faster than tgas. jpgs also render faster so i assume they are smaller files after conversion.

i haven't noticed a critical difference in the quality once they're applied. i use targa when i need a transparent alpha but use jpgs for everything else.

I agree, mostly. Except that it does matter on things like resumes, job apps, letters to the editor, and anything other writing a stranger is apt to use as a judgement meter. So it's better to learn how to spelll correctly -- if you do it or not, now that's another matter all together. I say both "color" and "colour" are correct -- and anyone who knows that in British English words are spelled differently will recognize that .

Zana