Manish Singh <yosh <at>> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:19:29PM +0200, Antti MÃkelà wrote:
> >   (No lectures on the default 85 being "enough", thank you - it is not
> > enough, and I can clearly see artifacts on my edited digital photographs if
> > saved with 85.).
> You do get the lecture from the libjpeg documentation:
>     Quality values above about 95 are NOT recommended for normal use;
>     the compressed file size goes up dramatically for hardly any gain
>     in output image quality.

Who said Mr. MÃkelà would be happy with "normal use"?

When you look at the pixel level, there is a definitive difference between 
quality values 95 and 98. This is particularly true in places with strong 
gradients. Even Q value 95 may from time to time mush colours.

JPEG compression Q value 98 was chosen by us as the default compression quality 
because with that value cjpeg creates pictures that are approximately the same 
size as the original JPEG "camera negatives" that you get from the Canon 
PowerShot G1 - G5 when using highest JPEG quality. That is, with G3, both 
originals and edited 4 Mpix images are roughly 2 MiB. Also, as opposed to 
quality value 95, we couldn't detect any JPEG artifacts apart from the 
chroma degradation caused by JPEG's default 4:2:0 subsampling.

Kind regards,
 - Henrik

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to