jpegs are usually the smallest, but the drawback is that the compression is lossy - the image you uncompress is not _exactly_ what you compressed. this isn't really a big deal for photos and such, so it's generally the best for photorealistic images gifs only support 256 colors, but the compression is lossless. thus they're used mostly for line-drawing type images. the major drawback is you have to listen to the flamewars about the licensing issues of the compression algorithm. oh yeah, they are the only format that can do animation. the newest format, png, is designed to do most everything (it will probably take over at somepoint). unfortunately browser support for them is currently spotty at best. i don't really use tiff much, but i've heard they're the format of choice for graphic designers and such who need large, high quality images
matt On 23 Dec 1999, Arcady Genkin wrote: > Looking for a comparison chart of different image formats, such as > tiff, jpeg, etc. I wonder what format is it more appropriate to scan > images into. > > Thanks, > -- > Arcady Genkin http://wgaf.dyndns.org > "'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who > loves man is nailed?..'" (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche) > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > >
