Date   : Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:27:00 +0100
From   : Russell Marks <russell.marks@...>
Subject: Re: Magazine test scans - Update

(I thought my last post was a reasonable one to close it with, but
apparently I was wrong. So here we go again. I will at least try to
keep it brief.)

"endie" <endie@...> wrote:

> From: "Russell Marks" <russell.marks@...>
[...]
> > 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

Yes, he said that repeatedly *afterwards*, and that claim is
indisputable. But he initially claimed it was lossless:

> From: Paul Wheatley <p.r.wheatley@...>
> Subject: Re: [BBC-Micro] Magazine test scans - Update
> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:28:50 +0100
[...]
> enough. If you want to use JPEG as a handy, widely used, open format then
> simply compress all images on 100 which makes them lossless. They will still

Paul has since accepted that this was not true.

> > 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

He didn't seem to be either. The cc was merely to give Tom the chance
to respond.

> Call me Richard Stallman if you will, but I'm a big fan of openness,
> standards, and non-proprietary software.

So am I.

> All this worry about the lossiness of jpeg compression ignores the fact that

Yes, it does. That's because I contested a claim Paul incorrectly made
and *that is all*.

-Rus.