A case against JPG  | | | 
November 25th, 2004, 12:09 PM
|
#41 (permalink)
| | Bringing Da Funk
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Da Bronx, NY
Posts: 3,985
|
__________________
Lord of the Low Frequencies | 
|  | |
November 25th, 2004, 03:43 PM
|
#42 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: A hole in the wall.
Posts: 869
|
I actually switched all my digital artwork from jpeg to png and the difference is amazing. | |
| | |
December 2nd, 2004, 01:44 PM
|
#43 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
|
JPG to be created for photography like images. Yes, it's lost some information, but it's really help to sending images via Internet. I do not think that you need convert your family archives in PNG or another lostless format. If you have it in JPEG , it already "spoiled".
If you don't notice these jpeg losses, why should they bother you? While hard driver space is always running out. I think not need more panic about JPEG | |
| | |
January 3rd, 2005, 04:01 PM
|
#44 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 25
|
Just a quickie, the PNG format is basically an enhanced GIF format.
__________________
"I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me." — George Dubya Bush
| |
| | |
February 20th, 2005, 09:34 PM
|
#45 (permalink)
| | nuisance since 1968
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ɐqɟs
Posts: 10,457
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dark Blade Just a quickie, the PNG format is basically an enhanced GIF format. | Correct. | |
| | |
March 9th, 2005, 05:17 AM
|
#46 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 292
|
WOW exellent article, opened up my eyes  . Definately gunna be ditching the JPGs | |
| | |
March 13th, 2005, 08:24 PM
|
#47 (permalink)
| | Megalomaniacal
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 13,014
|
ha this just strengthens my thoughts that PNG was best. Afterall ive been using it forever for images and photos/etc.
__________________ ------- | |
| | |
March 13th, 2005, 11:36 PM
|
#48 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kanada
Posts: 1,044
|
What's the differnece bewtween interlaced PNG and a normal PNG (aside from file size)? Are the vertical/horizontal lines "interlaced" with this feature on? | |
| | |
May 5th, 2005, 07:03 PM
|
#49 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 142
|
amazing article....
now i have to go buy a new camera.... it only takes in jpeg as I remember. | |
| | |
May 5th, 2005, 09:53 PM
|
#50 (permalink)
| | nuisance since 1968
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ɐqɟs
Posts: 10,457
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by TKP amazing article....
now i have to go buy a new camera.... it only takes in jpeg as I remember. | Well, you may have trouble finding a reasonably priced camera that will take non-JPG photos with acceptable performance. Most digital cameras currently only use JPG. I used to have a 1.3 megapixel Olympus that would take photos in JPG or TIF format. Unfortunately setting it to TIF mode made it virtually unusable. In TIF mode it would take well over 60 seconds to process the picture after you snapped it. Then it would take another 60 seconds to display the TIF to it's screen. That's a minimum 2 minutes per photo taken, all the while eating up batteries.
To be honest most camera's high quality JPG setting is not bad at all. Not perfect IMO, but reasonably ok. As long as you use the highest quality the camera will do you should be ok. Now I wouldn't suggest anyone convert from a lossless format into JPG, but when you're getting the JPG directly from the originating source (the camera) then that's going to be the cleanest JPG possible. It'll still have some artifacts and possibly color shifts that JPG is infamous for... but what can you do, aside from buying a muli-thousand dollar camera? | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |   Recent Discussions  | | | | |
 |
hardware
prices 
