At 06:21 AM 4/5/00 +0200, Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You got it wrong: saving a jpeg in ANY quality (higher or lower) causes loss
of quality. Saving in the same quality as the original image causes quality
loss depending on the selected quality.
As I said, the only effect is a
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 04:40:37PM +1000, Ian Boreham wrote:
From my understanding of JPEG (which is not expert), I would have thought
that although there might be a small loss of quality on subsequent cycles,
due to rounding-type errors, there would not be anywhere near the same as
the
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:38:45PM +0100, Nick Lamb wrote:
I suspect that choosing a non-integer implementation (which might be
faster on modern Intel hardware) would increase the damage from
subsequent cycles, but I've never tested that.
Have now, it makes no difference, so that's another
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 06:56:43PM +0100, Nick Lamb wrote:
Have now, it makes no difference, so that's another factor eliminated.
In fact, the integer code seems to produce the same image data as the
float code
On my machine, the FP code usually generates _slightly_ (think 40-50
bytes) smaller
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 05:24:37PM +0200, Stanislav Brabec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Saving in higher quality means vaste of disk space. Saving with less quality
will cause loss of quality. So the best is to save certain jpeg in the same
quality all times.
You got it wrong: saving a jpeg in
