Subject:
|
Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:01:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1204 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:41:56 GMT, "Mike Faunce" <mfaunce@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> As a test, I just took a 1024x768x8bit .bmp that was on my laptop (came with
> the IBM) and converted it to .jpg using various settings:
Starting with a 256-color image probably won't give you the best
comparision. If you've got a 24-bit image 'lying around', try your
tests on that one.
There's also a variation of JPEG, called (in Paint Shop Pro)
"progressive encoding". Does anyone know what this is?
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool)
|
| (...) I've been facing some jpgs throughout the web which like the old "interlaced" gifs, (showing up on the page as a whole but very coarse image at the time of opening the page, and improves itself as d/l continue). I've also heard or read (...) (26 years ago, 4-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool)
|
| I don't know if this is common knowledge or not ... I know I found it the hard way: jpeg does not necessarily mean "lossy" compression. You can (with a conversion program, I use Firehand Ember), convert from .xxx to .jpg without loosing information. (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
