On 08/17/2009 06:38 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote: > Jay Smith wrote: >> Monika, >> >> I agree that it does not make sense to loose quality when scaling smaller. >> > I'm confused I think. Isn't scaling smaller an inherently lossy > process? If there's information in a section that's 20 bits across and > it gets reduced to 5 bits across it isn't possible to still contain the > same information, is it? > > Patrick
As you state it, my understanding is, yes. Scaling smaller is a "lossy process". But at higher compression (more lossy) settings, JPEGs can be extremely lossy. Hopefully, however, when scaling smaller, there is adequate data in the image to not result in actual visible loss of quality in the image (other than it is smaller, etc.). However, my point was that if the user is one who, perhaps simply out of habit, saves every time they do anything, a JPEG can be turned from sharp and clear into visual mush after just a few saves. Back in the days when I was using Photoshop on Windows 95 on a 128 MB memory machine, I _did_ save every time I did anything simply because Windoze was going to crash -- it was not a question of IF it was going to crash, it was only a matter of WHEN. (But... I was editing TIFFs, not JPEGs, so there was no "lossyness".) Jay _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
