Xref: utzoo alt.fractals:229 comp.graphics:10989
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bu.edu!lll-winken!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!deimos!patterso
From: patterso@deimos.ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.fractals,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: How well does Barnsley's system perform?
Message-ID: <11565@deimos.ADS.COM>
Date: 12 Apr 90 22:46:52 GMT
References: <3166@usceast.UUCP> <1571@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <11486@deimos.ADS.COM> <22023@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Lines: 30

Organization: Advanced Decision Systems

In article <22023@bellcore.bellcore.com> sjs@bellcore.com (Stan Switzer) writes:
>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

There have been a lot of different measures proposed for compression
error analysis--rms error, edge loss, rms in the hvs space etc. and
to my knowledge nobody has a definative image quality index.  What are
you really saying when requesting a formal public measure and saying
this would make the technique useful?

	Tim