Re: jpeg vs jpeg2000 tests

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The jpg on the other hand at the same size as the heaviest compressed
photoshop one was absolutely awful. In fact I had to go at least 100k
bigger (or a third higher) to get a similar image.


So Photoshop has a super-duper JPEG compressor - 'cos I'm sure that GC
uses /okay/ JPEG compression.

Just tried it on pixelmator. At the same size, the pattern is identical
(although the GC version is lighter). Both as bad as each other.

So it's not so much that `non Photoshop' does JPEG badly, as Photoshop
doing it unusually well.


Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking