Author Topic: tremulous wallpaper - juicy resolution (Read 10575 times)

n.o.s.brain · « **on:** December 16, 2010, 07:30:30 am »

Hey guys, just twiddling around in 3dsmax, and came out with this:

the link will take you to a variety of colors, all 2560x1600.
I will upload other resolutions if people want them.

For some reason, the good ol' pixelated dretch symbolizes Tremulous to me more than any other logo.

DraZiLoX · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:00:22 pm »

That is very very cool. I will use one of them.

Conzul · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:39:30 pm »

Good show! This is now my PS3 background.

Pazuzu · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:45:36 pm »

The image isn't showing up for me.

CreatureofHell · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:49:09 pm »

I like it a lot but the light seems to be a bit white around the letters, brighter than most other parts.

Nux · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2010, 07:09:22 am »

Quote from: Pazuzu on December 16, 2010, 04:45:36 pm

The image isn't showing up for me.

I'm having the same problem. I'll note that from looking at the web page source, I can find the link this http://www.imn2rc.unvanquished.net/trem-wallpapers/. Not sure why but I can't seem to load the site at all.

UniqPhoeniX · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2010, 07:35:44 am »

Same problem here. Can't connect to unvanquished.net

DraZiLoX · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:43:48 am »

Mirrored!

UniqPhoeniX · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2010, 02:00:04 pm »

Nice, tho the green one has noticeable compression artifacts.

Nux · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2010, 12:45:41 am »

My favourite one was the orange on blue one. It doesn't really suit the dark theme tremulous has been using but ignoring that, it's the most attractive of those lot in my opinion.

mooseberry · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2010, 03:50:12 am »

Quote from: Nux on December 20, 2010, 12:45:41 am

My favourite one was the orange on blue one. It doesn't really suit the dark theme tremulous has been using but ignoring that, it's the most attractive of those lot in my opinion.

Guess you have an eye for complementary colors.

freezway · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2010, 04:47:33 am »

gahhh! jpeg

Repatition · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2010, 12:38:59 am »

Quote from: freezway on December 21, 2010, 04:47:33 am

gahhh! jpeg

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS WRONG WITH JPEG? MAC?

DraZiLoX · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2010, 04:47:34 pm »

Quote from: Repatition on December 23, 2010, 12:38:59 am

Quote from: freezway on December 21, 2010, 04:47:33 am
gahhh! jpeg

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS WRONG WITH JPEG? MAC?

The quality is raped in jpeg.
Here a picture for you: http://dtrem.com/files/jpegsucks_shadow.png

CorSair · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2010, 06:32:49 pm »

I don't see nothing unusual in pic, or my eyes are weak now.

-edit-
Nevermind, my laptop was in energy-efficient mode, and screen was fucked up...

Nux · « **Reply #15 on:** December 24, 2010, 02:07:23 am »

Yes, a JPEG is a lossy compression method. Use them if you're worried about file size more than pristine quality images. Otherwise use a lossless compression format like .png

CorSair · « **Reply #16 on:** December 24, 2010, 07:47:40 am »

Hope JPEG is replaced. Heard some news that Google made new pic format called WebP, similar to JPEG, except more efficient...

Nux · « **Reply #17 on:** December 25, 2010, 01:30:37 am »

Would be nice if JPEG is replaced... with something better. Don't knock JPEG, it does a very good job of what amounts to more of an art form than a technology. With lossy compression you're asking for data to be destroyed to allow for smaller file sizes and yet still have great quality. JPEGs do this by using 'dummy data' in places / ways it will be least noticed.

I just ask that you appreciate it for what it is: a high compression format to be used where the quality degredation won't be noticed/isn't a priority.

People misuse it and for that reason it gets a bad reputation.

EDIT: Also you should note that the quality can be adjusted and with settings close to 100 you can have very detailed images with still a significantly smaller filesize.

Conzul · « **Reply #18 on:** December 25, 2010, 05:13:50 am »

In today's world of multi-terabyte HD's and multi-gigabyte pen-drives, worrying about picture size is almost silly. Use PNG's whenever possible, they have much better quality (and built-in alpha controls, I think. Or was it opacity?)

CorSair · « **Reply #19 on:** December 25, 2010, 11:37:57 pm »

I read some article about new WebP pic format. Similar to JPEG, except more efficient, so told....

jm82792 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 27, 2010, 07:43:58 am »

PNG can have an alpha channel if you want it to.
OpenEXR is quality

Just 40 MB or so per HD still

Nux · « **Reply #21 on:** December 27, 2010, 06:26:26 pm »

WebP is designed to be better than JPEG but whether it will succeed has yet to be seen. Looking at comparisons here it seems WebP looks smoother but also looks a lot less detailed, like blur has been applied to a JPEG of the same size.

You don't often get something for free and in this case the only way you could do that is if you've managed to improve on our current ideas in Coding theory. This means that everything else you do will cost you either in file size, picture quality or processing time.

First a bad example

(original PNG) -18,084 bytes (96 quality JPEG) - 10,851 bytes (95 quality JPEG) - 9,884 bytes

Photos work better

(original PNG) - 267,524 byte (95 quality JPEG) - 59,033 bytes

Also note that the JPEG method is alive and kicking in the very latest video formats (along with the closely related interframe compression).

News:

Author Topic: tremulous wallpaper - juicy resolution (Read 10575 times)