Okay okay... I didn't have a converter on hand.... forgive me for posting
in bmp!!!!!

Jerome <ber### [at] inamecom> wrote in article
<38D8B8FB.57F54268@iname.com>...
> Saadat Saeed wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah my first choice is always a jpg... but in this case a zipped bmp
was a
> > little more in size with without any loss in quality!
> 	Except that I can't see bmps here...
> 
> 		Jerome
> -- 

> * Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
> * to Hyde...                  * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
> *******************************
>

Post a reply to this message

Saadat Saeed wrote:
> 
> Yeah my first choice is always a jpg... but in this case a zipped bmp was a
> little more in size with without any loss in quality!

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.

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.

	hp
  
-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer             | Think of it as evolution in action
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR                |
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat               |   -- Tony Rand in "Oath of Fealty"
__/   | http://wsrx.wsr.ac.at/~hjp/ | 	   by Niven & Pournelle

Post a reply to this message

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