In article <38D95533.E53482F6@hjp.at>, "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp### [at] hjpat> 
wrote:

> The .zip file was 68 kB. Sure that isn't really big. But I just saved 
> the bmp file with standard settings (75% quality, no smoothing) from 
> xv, and the jpg was only 7.8 kB! That's quite a lot smaller, and I 
> can't see any difference between the bmp and the jpg.

And another thing-many readers can display GIF, JPEG, or PNG images by 
themselves, but I had to open a separate program, extract the file, and 
open yet another program to view the file. It is much easier to just 
scroll down. :-)


> I don't know what you did, of course; but I often see jpgs which have 
> been created with a quality setting close to 100%. This makes the 
> image a lot larger but adds very little in quality for most images.

I usually use around 60-70% quality, I adjust it to fit the image. I 
have gone down to 45%, but only once. But the software being used to 
compress the file does matter.
And I only use JPEG for web images and newsgroup posts, I prefer to use 
PNG, PICT, or TGA. I really dislike those compression artifacts.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message