>There's no question that the original, not-JPEG, uncompressed image > will print better too, the difference is purely a matter of what you > consider as significant.
Wondering if your statement is based on actual work you've done or ? Significant, to me, would be if you could notice the difference in a 13" X 19" print when viewed from an appropriatre distance. YMMV Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Jack, > > Not sure I understand your question. > > A 6.1 Megapixel image can be represented in files of varying size > depending upon the pixel depth as well as how much and what type of > compression you apply. A 1.5M JPEG rendering might have substantial > compression artifacts, or it might have very little, depending upon > the image and the quality of the JPEG compressor. [ ... ] > There's no question that the original, not-JPEG, uncompressed image > will print better too, the difference is purely a matter of what you > consider as significant. Ah, so someone mention that already. I didn't notice that (see my other post.) - Toralf ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
