home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.graphics:13459 alt.graphics.pixutils:2836
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!butler.cc.tut.fi!cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail
- From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana)
- Newsgroups: comp.graphics,alt.graphics.pixutils
- Subject: Re: Your one stop GRAPHICS shop!
- Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:23:25 +0200
- Organization: Tampere University of Technology
- Lines: 22
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1if4idINNaob@cc.tut.fi>
- References: <1993Jan6.091522.27864@plx.com> <1993Jan6.145125.24519@a.cs.okstate.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
-
- In article <1993Jan6.145125.24519@a.cs.okstate.edu>
- jmccorm@a.cs.okstate.edu (MCCORMICK JOSHUA C) writes:
- >
- >Actually, the experience is just the reverse here for me. After searching a
- >GIFLITE picture carefully, it is very difficult to tell _any_ damage to the
- >picture. When comparing commonly available JPG's to the originals, the
- >damage is more than obvious.
-
- Do you write about misconverted JPEG's or properly converted?
-
- I have recently converted few tiff files to jpeg
- with 'tifftopbm image.tiff | cjpeg -Q 90 (or 95) > image.jpg'
- and then compared 'tiff to 8bit' and 'tiff to jpeg to 8bit'
- images due the lack of 24bit screen.
-
- I have got very good results even by zooming the image to pixel
- level -- only bad place is when the image is scanned and
- overilluminated; that is cured by using Q=95 quality level.
-
- However, the overilluminated images are rare.
-
- Juhana Kouhia
-