Date   : Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:12:31 +0100
From   : "endie" <endie@...>
Subject: Re: Magazine test scans - Update

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Marks" <russell.marks@...>
To: <bbc-micro@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [BBC-Micro] Magazine test scans - Update


> I'm pretty sure that Paul is wrong on this one, and that Q100 JPEG is
> not lossless.

I'd have to say that Paul is absolutely right, and that he said the
compressed format was "virtually" identical.  That is a very long way from
saying lossless, which is a very different thing.  He has repeatedly made
this clear, and just seems to be being ignored by people responding to a
statement he never made.

> Still, I'm taking this to email (which will be cc'd to Tom). I'm sorry
> if I've wasted everyone else's time with this one.

Frankly, I don't imagine Tom - if he is a normal, secure person - will give
two hoots.  I, myself, would be a combination of bemused and annoyed to be
brought in on a matter of opinion caused by a misunderstood statement, but
maybe he is more defensive.

> (I agree that PNG is the best choice for the scans, BTW.)

Ditto, as stated before.  Jpegs are a perfectly acceptable second choice,
mind you, and infinitely preferable to taking a punt on the .djvu route.
Call me Richard Stallman if you will, but I'm a big fan of openness,
standards, and non-proprietary software.

All this worry about the lossiness of jpeg compression ignores the fact that
far more information will be lost in the (analogue) scanning stage.

Endie