This is boring and purile! Do I have to butt in and show you fellas how to have an artful flame war?
Regards, Bob... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >I also refuse to use jpeg, png or nothing. >> > >> >> > >> Wow. That's bizarre. >> > > >> > > Hardly, jpeg is lossy compression. It grabs a square of pixels and >> > > averages them, you lose both dynamic range and resolution with >> > > jpeg. PNG is lossless and opensource. The other problem with jpeg >> > > is that because of the way it handles compression, it chokes on >> > > film grain. There isn't a way to feed a jpeg encoder a image with >> > > allot of film grain and have it spit out a reasonable result. >> > > People use it because they just don't know any better. >> > >> > You're talking about displaying photographs on the internet, which is >> > meant >> > to be a way of sharing information quickly and easily. Image >> > compression >> > quality takes a back seat most of the time around here, and no one else >> > seems to be complaining about it. >> > >> > Your elitist attitude is grating. If you really don't care about what >> > others think of your photos, why bother posting them in the first >> > place? >> >> I thought they may enjoy it, I was wrong, instead they looked for >> something to complain about. Typical of the bulk of people really. > > I've got more bandwidth than God when I'm at work. I work for the > company formerly known as UUNET. I've got straight 100MB Full-Duplex > connections directly to the alter.net backbone. Your site is still too > slow. PNG is NOT a format for rendering photographic output. If fact > you probably couldn't have picked a worse format (Well, GIF, but it's > got all the bad points of PNG with the addition of patent > encumbrance). JPEG is the only commonly supported graphics format > suited to web display of photographic images. Yes, it does have some > bad points, but a max quality JPEG with smaller, lower-quality > thumbnails will produce similar quality output (visually > indistinguishable for the full-size image) with far better page render > speeds (because your thumbnail's won't be 20x the size they need to > be). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
