Some years back, I took a tiff file, printed it out on a color proofing device, then saved it as a JPEG file with medium compression and printed it again. From a small distance, our graphics artist could not tell which image was which or see a difference. Up close however, his trained eye could see minute variations in the JPEG image.
I wonder if he could have seen the difference using low JPEG compression. I guess my point is, if it takes a trained eye to tell the difference, how much “better” can better be? It might be like trying to produce a higher resolution display than a retina display. The difference becomes purely academic at some point. Now as far as file size, if they can achieve same size or smaller than JPEG with a noticeable improvement in quality, why then that is something. Bob S On Dec 12, 2014, at 17:02 , Alejandro Tejada <capellan2...@gmail.com<mailto:capellan2...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi All, Check this new image format: http://bellard.org/bpg/ http://bellard.org/bpg/gallery2.html http://bellard.org/bpg/lena.html Interesting enough, this new image format looks a lot better than JPEG and have an impressive compression advantage compared with PNG... Have a weekend! Al _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
