Seeing as how some people liekd them (Cars)
 

Here is another car recolour/mod thing. I will upload now the image which I used to photo edit, and the image I turned it into. I made this for a friend of mine, she loves pink. personally, i do not. Enjoy.
I only posted this up mainly because i remember Zero Hour saying something about liking them a while ago.
edit - Jpegs

Dude, this is why we have jpegs.

Jpegs usually degrade the quality as well. However it depends what quality of Jpeg you use.

Dude, I read the title and was like "Some people?", and new it was me. Then you said it was me and I was like "Woa, flattered.". Cool :) I like your recolors.

The re-colour job is well done, but I think you went over-board with the light effects on the headlights and the reflection on the side mirror.

Yea, he always does cool recolors, though this is the first time I've seen him go ape**** with effects.

Still cool.

Not to the extent that it's noticeable.

If its a very poor quality jpeg its noticeable.

Notice that you used the word 'usually'.

Most uses of jpeg compression do not produce noticeable artifacts.

How would it produce a noticeable "artifact"? Explain your use of the word, cause it looks like you just took the piss out of your arguement there.

I believe he is refering to a degrade in quality as a "noticable artifact".

light's too bright.

Artifacts are noticable blemishes (if you want to call them that) on an image. The higher you compress an image with jpeg, the more artifacts you'll notice. I've attached an example of what happens as you compress an image more and more with jpeg; the differences you see over time are artifacts.

EDIT: Made it so you can see the artifacts themselves on the right side, the original image is in the middle.

Oh, makes some sense then.

Next time, please consult a dictionary before you start ranting about my use of a word.

Pleas don't use this thread as an excuse to argue about jpegs thus increasing your post count. If you go to threads, why not post things relevant to the subject under discussion, other than a subject that happens to have come up by someone else? If you wish to have pointless arguements then go to the non graal related threads as im sure they have no relation to anything what so ever

Yeah, I've just been itching for an excuse to argue about jpegs. It's been bothering me all week.

Bottom line, Sonny Jim: If the public find topic B more interesting than topic A then why not let them discuss it? This forum does not belong to you. This thread does not belong to you. The point of the board is to let the players talk about things that interest them.

If a mod wanted to split the thread then that'd be fine (although I don't think it's reached a point where that's necessary). But telling us to stop discussing a legal topic that interests us? No.

Kai. Less of the sonny jim first. Second. This thread does not belong to me, but I am aware that I DID create it for a purpose. Following this purpose would justify the threads intention. If you wish to argue, as I have noticed you doing excessively, make some other threads where people want to hear your views on random things which aggrivate you. Before you mention that a JPEG is a graphic, thus should belong here, you are right. It's plaudible that you think this, but does it have any reletivity to the fact that I have modded upon an originally green car, and am posting it to see what people think? I highly doubt it. Go start a nee thread, and stop trolling in threads which have no concern for the reasons of how a JPEG differes from a PNG and how its format has advantages or disadvantages. If you think what you are doing is right, why not head over on to every other thread with an attachment, and say your view. I know if I thought it was right, I'd be giving them all a piece of my mind about saving files as ".nw" files instead of ".graal" or ".zelda" over at the levels forums.

Yeah, so? There's no rule stating that posters must fulfil threads' purposes.

So you think my first post in this thread was wrong in some way? You think that suggesting a more efficient image format is a heinous act, despite that it was intended specifically to solve a problem that you yourself had voiced?

Sorry! I didn't realise that it was immoral to give advice now. Evidently I missed that memo.

Redwizard, your simply making the thread diverge farther from what you'd like by participating and aknowledging Kaimetsu's jpeg tangent.

It is relevant; the discussion arose because of your image, not because somebody simply decided to talk about jpegs out of the blue. So just let it run its course and people will get back to the main topic if there is still anything of interest for anybody to post. You just bury it deeper by starting yet another argument about arguing about jpegs in your thread!

true, that.

Totally agree.

I like it alot :) I might post my recoloured Ford Focus one time.

Yes, there is often reason to Kai's madness :-P

Kaimetsu just has a bad case of the crabs.

Donald, I've told you this before.

Jpeg is a file type used to compress images above 256 colors. If your image has 256 of below colors there will be numerous errors. It is designed for things such as photos or images with thousands and millions of colors. When used properly it leaves no errors or anything you can notice without zooming in.

Was that really worth reviving a thread?

Yea, I was wondering that too. o.O

Yes, considering I only get 1 post per day. :cool: