Slime wrote:

> Looks a ton better. And according to my newsreader it's actually smaller.
> 
> Those artifacts in the first image didn't really look like jpeg artifacts to
> me. It looked like rows or columns of pixels were missing or doubled, making
> it blocky (and not those 8x8 blocks that jpeg makes, i mean on a smaller
> level). I would think if it were jpeg that was the problem then the sharp
> lines would have "bled" more.


I would much prefer to post in .png, but this particular image when 
converted that way was 1.5 meg.  I suppose there's still enough people 
using dialup that I would get my wrist slapped for that.


Oskar

Post a reply to this message