I usually use 95% for digital photography, png
for lossless encoding of renders. Here, I'd still
post them as jpg.

But you're right. Some jpg engines are better
than others at the same quality rate (say, comparing
various 95% results for the same picture with
different software.) I would have expected the
quality to be rather similar, but it's not always.

-- 
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
ste### [at] stevenpigeoncom
ste### [at] videotronca
"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:42643d70@news.povray.org...
> "Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
> news:42643404$1@news.povray.org...

>>
>> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
>> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
>> and you'll get good results.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>     S.
>>
>
> Even higher yeilds substantially better file sizes. Staring from his PNG,
> 97% quality settings in GIMP gave me a JPEG file size of 189kb and just
> barely blurred the border between red and brown. No noticeable color
> artifacts internal to a color. Where there is red, it's all a smooth
> gradient. Nothing even near to the degraded quality of the original low
> quality post, very similar to the quality of the PNG.
>
> -r
>
>

Post a reply to this message