Re: compression factor
- From: "Stan Beck" <stan101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:46 -0500
Well, there are several factors (and different software gives the
compression ratio differently). You want to compress enough to make the
image file small, but not to the point where you begin to see compression
artifacts. If you have an image with a lot of blue sky, for example, the
jpg file will be a lot smaller for a given compression ratio than for one
with lots of trees. The one with trees will handle higher compression
ratios than the one with the sky (but it will be smaller already, anyway).
--
Honest technical and artistic critiques welcomed.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
"Smed" <gsx1300r_busa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rK2Og.7876$Wh.378@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
when posting your pictures to a website or posting to a newsgroup, what
compression factor is the standard?
i've been using 35 as my standard setting... on a 800x533 jpg it averages
around 40kb which seems pretty good incase someone out there is running a
56k modem..
im sure this question has been posted several times so i apologize in
advance...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: compression factor
- From: Marvin
- Re: compression factor
- References:
- compression factor
- From: Smed
- compression factor
- Prev by Date: Re: level
- Next by Date: Re: Gigantic Telephoto Lens!
- Previous by thread: compression factor
- Next by thread: Re: compression factor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|