[PD] pix_freeframe

[Yves Degoyon]

ok, sorry,

that was harsh for your 1st message on the list
( but that's a harsh list ),
it's always full of 'my stuff is better, blah, blah. blah, ...'

YUV is just a compromise between quality
and real-time processing
( that's a concern in pd )

sorry again,
sevy


pär F wrote:

>
>> ola,
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4-2-2 or 4-1-1 reduces space in a great way, but if you need to  
>>> make  manipulations that moves information from color to luminance  
>>> the  method might be a rather bad idéa. Worse even, if you need to  
>>> use  color-information for creating an alpha-channel (blue-screen/ 
>>> green- screen f.ex.) you might experience serious loss of quality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> sick of quality maniacs and of professors,
>> hey man, we knew what you taught us.
>
>
> I'm new to this community but I'm sure most of you did know this,  
> though I'm not really sure everyone involved did, and thought some  
> clarification might bring the discussion up to a more constructive  
> level. Sorry if I insulted you in some way by doing this. I'm  
> seriously not a quality maniac but there are always decisions to make  
> or ignore and as you so wisely remarked earlier: "it all depends on  
> the patch". In some cases it's just good to have the information.
>
>> ask yourself why many people work in YUV
>> ( and i'm not defending it, i don't care )
>
>
> I think I did rather well explain why people use YUV and 4-2-2 don't  
> you think? I don't want to take sides in this discussion, as the  
> truth is in "it all depends". Though I would agree (of course), in  
> most cases 4-2-2 or 4-2-0 is far more than good enough.
>
> In the end just use what works, simple as that. OK?
>
> .p
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>