on 2004/08/02 6:16 AM, Piers Hemy at piers@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> While it's true that a file in memory "doesn't really have a type - it's in
> whatever internal format the software that opened it uses (perhaps just an
> array of pixel values)" it's important to remember that those pixel values
> are the values that have been read from disk file (or scanner), and include
> only the JPEG encoded 'lossy' picture data. Even though the pixel count may
> be 18MB, you will not get 18MB of image data from a 1.2MB JPEG file. You may
> not notice the difference in an ink-jet print at the desired size, but in
> the case of printed illustartions in a publication, I suspect that there is
> a risk the process of 'screening' the image for printing could magnify the
> file-compression artifactts.
Yes, you and Moose are both correct: the 18MB that comes out is only an
approximation of the 18MB that went in.
Andrew
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|