On 08/17/2009 06:38 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Jay Smith wrote:
>> I agree that it does not make sense to loose quality when scaling smaller.
> I'm confused I think. Isn't scaling smaller an inherently lossy
> process? If there's information in a section that's 20 bits across and
> it gets reduced to 5 bits across it isn't possible to still contain the
> same information, is it?
As you state it, my understanding is, yes. Scaling smaller is a "lossy
process". But at higher compression (more lossy) settings, JPEGs can be
extremely lossy. Hopefully, however, when scaling smaller, there is
adequate data in the image to not result in actual visible loss of
quality in the image (other than it is smaller, etc.).
However, my point was that if the user is one who, perhaps simply out of
habit, saves every time they do anything, a JPEG can be turned from
sharp and clear into visual mush after just a few saves.
Back in the days when I was using Photoshop on Windows 95 on a 128 MB
memory machine, I _did_ save every time I did anything simply because
Windoze was going to crash -- it was not a question of IF it was going
to crash, it was only a matter of WHEN. (But... I was editing TIFFs,
not JPEGs, so there was no "lossyness".)
Gimp-user mailing list