Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!emory!mephisto!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!poirier
From: poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: How about Sliced EHB ??
Summary: SHAM quality
Message-ID: <1337@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 89 19:07:16 GMT
References: <857@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: usenet@xyzzy.UUCP
Reply-To: poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (  Poirier local)
Lines: 20

In article <857@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>In <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes:
>>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the
>>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity,
>>just to bring up the image?
>
>Hear hear!  It is especially irritating when I look at the pictures shown by
>these programs, and see that they are usually of lesser quality than those
>produced by ASDG's ScanLab, where the work is put into the picture at the time
>it is generated, to produce a HAM bitmap with absolutely minimal 'HAMMIES'....

True, ASDG's HAMmed scans (the ones I've seen) look great.  But to be fair
about it, the only SHAMs I've seen were converted from 256-color GIF, giving
at best 256-color SHAMs.  Naturally they can't compete with 4096-color HAMs.
What I want to see are A-B comparisons of HAM vs SHAM, both generated from
the same RGB file.

I like that word "Hammies", for HAM fringing artifacts.

	Cheers,
	Charles Poirier