| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:54 AM Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> And the png does make a massive difference - the same command with jpg |
| 4 |
> output is 1.7MB - so why is my scanner chucking out 800KB jpegs if I set |
| 5 |
> it correctly? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
jpeg quality is adjustable. You can output a jpeg file of almost any size. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Software less geared towards image editing may not actually let you |
| 10 |
set the quality level, but the software IS using one. So, two |
| 11 |
programs could output the same file at different sizes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The smaller you make the file, the lower the quality. This does have |
| 14 |
diminishing returns - as you approach maximum quality you increase the |
| 15 |
size greatly with very little difference in visual quality. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Of course, if you try to convert that 1.7MB jpeg into a 30kb jpeg, |
| 18 |
you'll probably notice the difference. This is why this is a meme: |
| 19 |
http://needsmorejpeg.com/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives