--- Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think comparing file sizes of JPG and BMP is
> really meaningful,
> because they are different formats, just as a
> spreadsheet saved in Excel
> format wouldn't necessarily be the same size as an
> identical spreadsheet in
> Lotus format.
Sorry, but I disagree. I have had some experience in
programming with formats many years ago when JPEG was
not the rage. A bitmap is the true pixel
representation of the image. At that time I think TIFF
was the rage since it was able cut the file size down
without losing any information (lossless) and hence
ppl could have much bigger resolution for their
scanned images and still not incur the penalty of the
BMP size. Then the JPEG caught the rage and it is
still the leader today because of what it can do by
using the Lossy format to the file size, while still
retaining quality acccording to users preferences. A
parallel was true of video formats with MPEG
compression (if anyone here still remembers the
behemoths called LDs).
- Harman
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
