On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:32:52AM -0800, T. Modes wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 17:57:08 UTC+1 schrieb Toolforger:
> > Ah, the joys of too much editing.
> > I tested with PNG and found that 300 dpi with the right settings are small
> > enough. TIFF with one of its compression modes may work, too,
> >
> Sorry, but PNG and 300 dpi resolution have nothing in common. A JPEG and a
> TIFF or a BMP can also have 300 dpi resolution. It seems you mix a lot up.
Well, I do understand that after a bunch of non-information and
wrong-writing, you start reading precisely what is written and nitpick
on everything.
But in this case, it's is pretty clear what is meant: When scanning
the book at 300DPI, the resulting PNG is acceptable in (on-disk) size.
PNG claims "lossless" compression. The question is: Is that relevant?
If, say you scan at 600 DPI, and use a high-enough-quality JPG
compression, I would expect that you can get better quality at
less-bits-on-disk.....
Roger.
--
+-- Rogier Wolff -- www.harddisk-recovery.nl -- 0800 220 20 20 --
- Datarecovery Services Nederland B.V. Delft. KVK: 30160549 -
| Files foetsie, bestanden kwijt, alle data weg?!
| Blijf kalm en neem contact op met Harddisk-recovery.nl!
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/20180221144554.GP17324%40BitWizard.nl.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
