Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Surfer! <surfer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:09:46 +0100
In message <b6mi52tjjk1m9m8nt3b8nu8gn0hti3nhfb@xxxxxxx>, Raphael Bustin <foo@xxxxxxx> writes
<snip>
My general point about the visual quality of JPGs
holds for these four applications. I don't see any
visual degradation in any of these images until you
get to around 6:1 or 8:1 compression from "original.tif."
I had problems reducing a JPG - the original wasn't too bad but on reducing it sprouted jaggies and other undesirable artifacts. So, I scan into TIF not because I regard it as producing a better imaged compared to the *same* thing saved as a JPG, but so that if necessary I can produce a lower resolution file without running into the same problems again.
--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Scott W
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- References:
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Scott W
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Ken Weitzel
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Don
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Raphael Bustin
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Ken Weitzel
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- From: Raphael Bustin
- Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- Prev by Date: Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- Next by Date: Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- Previous by thread: Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- Next by thread: Re: Don, Noons: TIF v. JPG. More samples.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|