Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.compression Subject: Re: JPEG compression errors ?! Message-ID: <4021@sixhub.UUCP> Date: 10 Jun 91 01:34:46 GMT References: <1991Jun4.223719.2958@qualcomm.com> Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY Lines: 32 In article <1991Jun4.223719.2958@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: | Well, get this. GIF to JPEG works great for me on digitized GIF files of | resolution 640x400x8 or better (which are the majority). With no visible loss | of fidelity it compresses down to 10% to 25% of the original GIF file. It's This is a source of great discussion. Some people feel that there is not visible data loss, others think that it is unacceptable. The argument advanced is that the image is not perfect anyway, so why would a little more degradation matter? I think that everyone would agree that a lossless compression with the same results would be better, the question is one of reduced quality vs running out of space. I personally use JPEG for some images, and keep the rest offline. I have a pair of 320MB drives to ease the choices. I have a friend who has 1.5GB of images and keeps them on 150MB tape because he can't stand JPEG. I don't think JPEG is acceptable to everyone, I do think it's a valuable tool for those who either can't see the difference, can accept the changes, or who have images which respond well to JPEG compression. Trying to convince someone that JPEG is (or isn't) suitable is a waste of time, since there is no objective answer. Hopefully fractal compression will get here soon. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me