Re: GIF vs JPG

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D Marvin Jones wrote:

> May I suggest running test instead of just accepting this "common
> knowledge" without question?

It has been tested beyond any reasonable need.  JPG quality eats GIF
alive byte for byte.

If yours doesn't, it is invariably a non-real world image that has been
hue-dithered to give the impression of greater color depth in a 256
color image.  At 24 bit color, hue dithering is not only pointless, it
degrades image quality!

Frankly, real world images gain so little room from lossless
compression, that few professionals bother.  GIF only offers lossless
compression and even then lacks the intelligence to not use compression
when it results in a larger file, a common occurance for images
containing significant noise levels.


> (There's also the
> consideration that many, many of your visitors at a website will only have
> 256-color monitors, and the inferior dithering capabilities of most
> browsers will make your 24-bit JPGs look like last week's garbage!)

I would be surprised if there is even a video card for sale which
doesn't offer 24 bit color.  I bought my card in 1992, and even then 24
bit color was a $50 upgrade om a $150 card.  Today there are many 24 bit
cards are cheaper than the cheapest modem.

I could be wrong, but "many, many" sounds pretty exagerated to this
kid.  Of course, there maybe many, many people that don't realize that
with today's bus speeds there is little advantage to running less than
16 bit color.  I have been just exposed to a bunch of win95 users, and I
was staggered by how many didn't even know you could change the color
resolution, never mind how to do it or why you would want to.

--
John Ohrt,  Regina, SK, Canada
johrt@xxxxxxx



------------------------------