Why would anybody apply scanlines to an image
and thereby degrading it?

example
http://www.fotofects.com/tutorials/...dex.
htm

Dave

DD wrote:
>
>
> Why would anybody apply scanlines to an image
> and thereby degrading it?
>
> example
> http://www.fotofects.com/tutorials/...de
x.htm
>
> Dave
Some people think it's a cool effect. I think it's overused. This would
not be for high quality image viewing, just a special effect, like
someone looking at the pic on TV.

--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

>Why would anybody apply scanlines to an image
and thereby degrading it?

Because it's trendy. Many people think it's, like, a totally k00l effect,
'cause, like, it looks like the image on, like, a TV or something, and that'
s,
like, cool and and stuff, you know?

Seriously, there are (limited) times when it's an appropriate effect, but fo
r
the most part, it's rather overused.

--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Dave:

>Why would anybody apply scanlines to an image
>and thereby degrading it?
*****************************

>Edjh reckons:

>Some people think it's a cool effect. I think it's overused. This would
>not be for high quality image viewing, just a special effect, like
>someone looking at the pic on TV.
*******************************************

:and Tacit wholeheartedly agree:
 
>and thereby degrading it?
>
>Because it's trendy. Many people think it's, like, a totally k00l effect,
>'cause, like, it looks like the image on, like, a TV or something, and that
's,
>like, cool and and stuff, you know?
>
>Seriously, there are (limited) times when it's an appropriate effect, but f
or
>the most part, it's rather overused.
*******************************************


Thanx, wondered what I missed here.
Like you's said, its taste. Questionable taste.

Dave

edjh wrote:
> DD wrote: 
> Some people think it's a cool effect. I think it's overused. This would
> not be for high quality image viewing, just a special effect, like
> someone looking at the pic on TV.

A good time to use it might be if you had the primary image along with some
small data blocks scattered around it.. those smaller "screens" would perhap
s
look really cool if you hit them with that effect.. so as the main thing not
 so
much, but to enhance sections would be nice.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:15:54 GMT, "Morituri-Max"
<newage@sendarico.net> wrote:

>edjh wrote: 
>
>A good time to use it might be if you had the primary image along with some
>small data blocks scattered around it.. those smaller "screens" would perha
ps
>look really cool if you hit them with that effect.. so as the main thing no
t so
>much, but to enhance sections would be nice.


Thanx MM, this goes with edjh's answer in my 'Hints' file

DD

DD wrote: 
>
> Thanx MM, this goes with edjh's answer in my 'Hints' file

Aye, no problemo dorkwad... OOPS!  <kidding> just saw terminator judgement d
ay
again.. uncle bob rules..

8 )

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:15:54 GMT, "Morituri-Max"
<newage@sendarico.net> wrote:

>edjh wrote: 
>
>A good time to use it might be if you had the primary image along with some
>small data blocks scattered around it.. those smaller "screens" would perha
ps
>look really cool if you hit them with that effect.. so as the main thing no
t so
>much, but to enhance sections would be nice.


Thanx MM, this goes with edjh's answer in my 'Hints' file

DD