On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:26:36 +0100 (CET), Qkano <snapper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: > >I'll bet if you showed me the image on screen I would not be able to tell the difference between the original and the jpeg2 version. > >Well, not until I put my reading glasses on :o) > Yes, you're likely right. But I know what you think of a JPG compression of 2 ;-) > >Seriously, I've read/heard so many times claims of "no difference" (same as claims of "pin sharp") to be very wary of judging till you actually compare for yourself (with reading glasses if needed). I agree with you. I have large images that compress to 10k at jpeg 6 and others where artifacts become objectionable at over 100K. An ocean full of choppy waves makes a big JPG file. Really big. My point is, that 75K in this day of cheap big hard drives just seems a bit small. I don't like to send up an image of 600 by 400 nor do I like compressing below a level of 5. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
