Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!net1!hutch
From: hutch@net1.ucsd.edu (Jim Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Fractal Compression
Keywords: Deep Space
Message-ID: <4965@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: 22 May 88 23:01:24 GMT
References: <6603@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Reply-To: hutch@net1.UUCP (Jim Hutchison)
Lines: 20
Organization:

<6603@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> flaig@cit-vlsi.UUCP (Charles M. Flaig) writes:
>There are always a few applications for which almost any improvement in 
>compression ratio is worth the CPU time required to get it.  A major one
>that comes to mind is the transmission of pictures from deep space probes.
>Sending back 2K rather than 10K requires 1/5 as much energy, and they can
>afford to take their time processing the image after it is stored in the
>probes memory before transmitting it.

Deep space is a tough place.  The hardware has to be able to take abuse
which is still not well understood.  I have read several exciting articles
where they discuss hot-patching a space probe to get around some broken
hardware that got slammed by space.  Those must also be very fun to find.
Repeated symbol compressions (c.f. Lempel-Ziv) will work handily for the
digital data as well as the 2d data.  Strangely enough, I was also not of
the impression that probes used a frame store, or that they could afford
the mass.  Such a problem could make this a moot point.

    Jim Hutchison   		UUCP:	{dcdwest,ucbvax}!cs!net1!hutch
		    		ARPA:	Hutch@net1.ucsd.edu
Disclaimer:  The cat agreed that it would be o.k. to say these things.