--- "Schlake (William Colburn)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is really boils down to is that jpegs are good > at what they do. A > jpeg with high compression looks amazingly good. A > jpeg with low > compression, and thus higher image size, looks about > the same. The > difference is the file size.
Also disk space saved is inversely proportional to the quality "setting" used for the JPEG, regardless of noticeable quality differences :-) - Harman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
