Xref: utzoo alt.fractals:226 comp.graphics:10975
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!mephisto!psuvax1!rutgers!bellcore!roland!sjs
From: sjs@roland.ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fractals,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: How well does Barnsley's system perform?
Message-ID: <22023@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 12 Apr 90 12:56:25 GMT
References: <3166@usceast.UUCP> <1571@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <11486@deimos.ADS.COM>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: sjs@bellcore.com (Stan Switzer)
Organization: Bellcore
Lines: 19

Regarding Barnsley's method:

> I've seen one of the images which was compressed 10,000 to one.  It
> took a huge amount of time ( I vaguely recall days) to do the
> compression. Overall quality was not very good but what do you expect
> at that compression rate?

Unless the nature of the image degradation can be characterized in
some formal way, the technique will only be useful for producing
Gaughinesque renditions of scanned images.  I can see some
applications where all you need is gee-whiz graphics, but I can't see
how how it could be useful beyond that.

On the other hand, if the nature of the image quality degradation
could be formally (and publicly) described, then the technique might
be useful in a wide range of applications.  As it stands, it is
impossible to tell.

Stan Switzer  sjs@bellcore.com