Talk:Compression artifact

message: For those searching using British spelling:  Compression artefact.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.129.50 (talk • contribs) 
: Note that a redirect from the alternative spelling was added just minutes before the comment above was made. - dcljr (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English dialects

message: Hi, the audio section looks a bit unprofessional; it seems to be a partial revert of a deletion I made a while back. I think it needs to be rewritten to become more precise and accurate. --Kjoonlee 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio section 

message: In its discussion of picture encoding, the article states:
: Where predictive coding of motion pictures is used, as in MPEG-1, compression artifacts tend to remain on several generations of decompressed frames, leading to a "painting" effect being seen, as if the picture were being painted by an unseen artist's paint-brush.
: Where motion prediction is used, as in MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, compression artifacts tend to move with the optic flow of the image, leading to a peculiar effect, part way between a painting effect and "grime" that moves with objects in the scene.
So, am I to understand that "predictive coding of motion pictures" and "motion prediction" are two different things? This should probably be explained a bit further. A quick glance through the linked articles didn't help. - dcljr (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear

message: I think JPEG artifacts should be merged into this article, as they are both practically the same thing, and this article is longer. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The original image thumbnail is actually 7.95 kB now (I guess wikimedia's thumbnail generation has changed). That's smaller than the poor quality version below it, so can't really correct the size without making things confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbleRiver (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 42 kB thumbnail 

message: "Datamoshing" is a neologism (link to policy) for the purposeful manipulation of compression artifacts. The article is extremely short, and there are no real reliable sources that sup[port having a separate article. I suggest it be merged as a section here, until which time (if ever) it gains enough notability to be a stand alone article.--Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge proposal. I disagree with the characterization of the sources - the MTV link is detailed and from a respectable music journalism source. (I've removed the divisive merge-vote-heading-structure, as I don't anticipate this being a lengthy discussion/problem.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Support - Pointillist (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 'Support - I support this as well because it is only a fad and will not be remembered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal (Datamoshing) 

message: The last paragraph of the "Compression artifacts in audio coding" section appears to be missing the example.
"This highly compressed track of applause will illustrate the "metallic ringing" and other compression artifacts very well."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing audio example 

message: This image shows the (accentuated) difference between a JPEG image and the original. Note especially the changes apparent on sharp edges.
Excuse me. What original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.138.111 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 April 2010
: Indeed, the image was deleted last year.  But even more absurd is that "the original" is linked to a JPEG file, which cannot possibly be the original - unless it's either a Lossless JPEG (which would be foolish as not many browsers support this) or a PNG file that nonetheless has been given a .jpg extension.
: I think we need a new example.  But what would be a good image to use that we have in a lossless format in the first place?  (OK, so scaling down a high-res JPEG to a size at which its artefacts become irrelevant and then saving that as a PNG would be another possibility.)  FWIW I've just made some JPEG artefact images of :File:Lenna.png but not uploaded them yet.  I'm not sure what the right licensing label is for a derivative work of a fair use image.  But one of us could still create an image to use for this, thereby avoiding this issue. — Smjg (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This image shows... 

message: The Macroblock article used to include a section on generic block-coding artifacts, probably because "Macroblocking" is commonly used to refer to any and all block-coding artifacts. I have now integrated the content into this article. See also the discussion on the corresponding talk page Talk:Macroblock#.22Macroblocking.22. Conquerist (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of content from [[Macroblock]] 

message: * Dither
** Floyd–Steinberg dithering
Does a GIF (animated or not) with dithering have a type of compression artifact? NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does color dithering count? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Compression artifact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206181840/http://www.jpegtutor.co.uk/ to http://www.jpegtutor.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified