The three best options to compress images are PNG, GIF, and JPEG, depending
upon what the image is. These crappy squares would obviously work best in PNG
or GIF, although they still would be pretty small with a decent JPEG
compressor. Big fancy renders, for internet purposes, are better off in JPEG
because loss is minimal and there are so many colors. When I made the Escher
gallery, I had to get all the images in JPEG and convert them to PNG so POV
could read them, and that was a waste of time and disk space (the PNGs are
*much* bigger, unfortunately, converting it doesn't get rid of the loss).
There are no horrid artifacts for you to complain about.
The whole idea of using JPEG in the first place was for this exact purpose;
getting pictures of the 'net without converting them. It's up to the person
who posts it on the net in the first place to pick an appropriate format. I
don't think anyone around here wants to wait for a 5M PNG when they can get a
90k JPEG with slight noticeable loss or even a 600k JPEG that's almost exactly
the same.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message