Comparing different settings in a software is one way to go, personally I�ve been working for the biggest auctionhouse in sweden and we arcived ONLY highres jpg�s. First we used photoshop (4) jpg�s at hightst quality, not any sight of the jpg�s artifacts when printing. Later on we purchesed Binuscan ColorPro and belive me when I say that there is a difference between jpg�s at topsetting !!!
I have never seen any software making so good jpg ever, basta ! Now Binuscan also have released their PhotoRetouchPro with a quite magic "jpg removal" algoritm,for really damaged images, have only seen it working on screen, looks really good but like always, if it isn�t in the print - who cares about it !? I think that many people looks at "oooh this is a jpg image, this must be a really bad one....", I don�t feel that way at all. My boss once came to me and said, Stefan can you tell me with scan/print is made with a Heidelberg drumscanner and with one is a DaiNipon ?, tricky q I looked at the prints and after a while (they were very similar) I said "this one is the heidelberg one..." he just laughted at me and said, "no that one is a Umax PL 2000" (a 2000USD scanner at that time), what I want to say is, look at the images, the prints, if these are good you don�t have to bother with all this techical worries ! Cheers, Stefan on 10/21/01 3:25 PM, Mark T. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 04:06 AM 21/10/01 -0600, Bill wrote: >> ... >> o The JPEG standard includes a lossless setting. Photoshop 6 supports it: >> set the quality level to 12. it will compress to, say, 1/3 of the original >> size. JPEG only supports 24-bit images. > > G'day Bill. > > I had never heard of a lossless JPG, so I checked the JPEG FAQ, which > basically says that there *was* an early version of a lossless JPEG, but it > never took off. They also referred to a new standard called JPEG-LS - is > this what you meant? I couldn't see anything about it in the PS Help file, > but I only took a quick look. I would be most interested if PS6 really > does supprt a lossless JPG.. As far as I knew, the main players were/are: > > TIFF > - 48-bit, lossless, large files > > TIFF with LZ compression > - As above but files can be much smaller (esp if image is not grainy or > detailed), eg typically 1/2 to 1/5 original size > > JPEG > - 24-bit, lossy but adjustable. File sizes often less than 1/5 of the > uncompressed TIFF (depending on quality setting and image content) > > PNG > - 24-bit, lossless. File sizes usually a bit smaller than compressed TIFF, > but not as small as JPEG. > (PNG's are also readable by most browsers, which makes them useful for > 'critical' web-display.) > > FWIW, I always use TIFF without compression if in any doubt (I have had > quite a few problems with lack of portability of LZ'd TIFs), and I am now > moving over to PNG's for my own file storage in order to save CD > space. The lack of 48-bit quality hasn't yet been an issue for me.. > > mt >
