On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp < n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> > and time it takes to compress. > > What benefit does it give then if the result is the same perceptually? > Time it takes to compress. There's a big difference between waiting one second for a quick save and 60 seconds for a high-compression final export. On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Kornel Lesiński <kor...@geekhood.net> wrote: > I don't think it's a no-brainer. There are several ways it could be > interpreted: > The API is a no-brainer. That doesn't mean it should be done carelessly. That said, how it's implemented is an implementation detail, just like the JPEG quality parameter, though it should probably be required to never use lossy compression (strictly speaking this may not actually be required today...). FYI, I don't plan to spend much time arguing for this feature. My main issue is with the "just do it in script" argument. It would probably help for people more strongly interested in this to show a comparison of resulting file sizes and the relative amount of time it takes to compress them. -- Glenn Maynard
