Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!pomona.rice.edu!wasg
From: wasg@rice.edu (Eric Salituro)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Fractal Compression
Message-ID: <686@thalia.rice.edu>
Date: 10 May 88 17:52:34 GMT
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Reply-To: wasg@rice.edu (Eric Salituro)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 18
Keywords:fractals, compression

I fail to see what the hoopla over fractal-based image compression is all
about. In the last two weeks, I've read a couple of breathless articles
proclaiming 1000 to 1 reduction but all I've seen as evidence are a couple
of low-res pictures. 
I don't know what the originals looked like, but I think we could be wowed
more effectively after seeing a comparison. I think there is a forest image
running around that doesn't look as good as Reeves' particle-based forest
from "Andre and Wally B."
Both articles claim that after the compression process "the original can be
thrown away." Isn't that a little hyperbolic? From what I understand 
(admittedly from an oversimplified description of the algorithm) the picture
is made by assembling fractal copies of the original image components. To me,
that is like copying a cake with only the original recipe. It could be a
close approximation, but not the same as the original.
Please straighten me out, it seems a little soon to call this revolutionary.

Eric Salituro
pion, Rice University