Subject: Re: XP design for image support
From: Hubert Figuiere (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 06:15:02 CDT
According to Sam TH <email@example.com>:
> > Absolutely NO. I'm totally against this. Why ? See how a big mess it will be.
> > Take the example of RTF: picture format supported are PICT, WMF, DIB, BMP, JPEG,
> > PNG, TIFF, GIF, etc. Not really a few for an *interchange* format.
> > So we should onle save PNG, SVG and JPEG (I'm pushing hard for this).
> > When it comes to object embedding, any object embedded MUST include its last
> > representation, for display and printing purpose, in one of the 3 support
> > file format (most likely SVG).
> Yes, yes, yes, +6. :-)
> Actually, I'm still not convinced about jpeg. Hub, what kind of space
> savings are we talking about here?
Let's do a simple test:
I take a photography of my wife's parents dog that has been saved in JPEG
using medium compression, whose photographic quality is quite good.
Resolution is 1024x768 in 24bits
I take xv that uses libpng to do PNG. Save the same image as PNG using
full color and maximum level of compression.
Here is the result:
[~] (rhodan) >>ll jade1024.*
-r--r--r-- 1 hub hub 93416 Jan 3 13:20 jade1024.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 hub hub 901867 Apr 20 13:09 jade1024.png
[~] (rhodan) >>
Do you need comparison charts ?
And TIFF using LZW:
-rw-r--r-- 1 hub hub 2273564 Apr 20 13:13 jade1024.tif
Note that what I have done is typical use of JPEG: photography.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 06:15:31 CDT