On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Which leads to think that doing some blinded experiment (real people > evaluating the images) to compare compressed images has still some value.
I think it would be worthwhile to do two experiments with real people evaluating the images: 1) For a given file size with artifacts visible, which format produces the least terrible artifacts? 2) Which format gives the smallest file size with a level of artifacts that is so mild that people don't notice the artifacts? My limited experience suggests that the ranking of the formats could be different for those two different questions. Also, my understanding is that the quality metric algorithms are foremost about answering question #1 while question #2 is often more important for Web designers. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] http://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
