"Terry and Tracey" <foxcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also, he said jpeg is a mathmatical representation of the image, not the
> image itself. And it is the same quality as the original. So with no
> compression selected, jpeg will be about 1/8 of a tiff file. Increase
> compression, and the trade off with image quality happens quick. Resave, and
> it recomputes and quality drops.
Crap. Get better friends. ;-)
All Jpeg images are compressed to a greater or lesser extent. Jpeg
compression is lossy meaning that image data is discarded in the process
of converting the image size. The trick with Jpeg is that human eye is
unlikely to notice the missing data. But data has gone and there is no
way to get it back.
I haven't read the Jpeg spec, but was it originally intended for
low-resolution work (ie, computer screen)?
Would it be a generalisation to say that comsumer digital cameras store
Jpeg images, while pro-quality produce Tiff or other non-compressed formats?
Vaughan
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|