On 3/5/02 1:46 AM, "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Secondly, it was I think John Lind who remarked on my use of a gif image for
> my most recent image posting, saying that a jpeg would probably have been
> better. Later I remembered why I used a GIF.
>
> I did the colour corrections, contrast fixing (most important to restore the
> detail of the actual print) and sharpening, in Adobe PhotoDeluxe. (I don't
> have
> the HDD space to run Photoshop at the moment.) PhotoDeluxe uses PDD
> files for its in-house image alterations. So I did all that stuff on the PDD
> file,
> and exported a re-sized version to a gif file for storage as it is a lossless
> format. Then I went back and created a jpg file for the web. It turned out
> that
> the jpg file that gave the same quality of display as the gif file was
> significantly larger. So I scrapped it and used the gif. The gif file is
> already
> bigger than I'd like.
Having not seen either version of the image I'm dealing strictly with
generalities here. What you say seems very strange. The reason is that gif
only supports up to 8-bit colour (256 colours) IIRC. So unless the image has
very few colours within it, the jpeg (which supports up to 24-bit colour)
should look significantly better for a photo. Granted, gif can use custom
colour palettes (ie, the 256 colours are drawn from the actual image as
opposed to the image being forced into a 256 colour palette that has many
unnecessary colours) and with some good dithering, you can get very nice
results. Although this will sacrifice file size as space is needed for the
colour palette and large continuous areas of colour compress better than a
dithered image.
--
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< 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 >
|