4 ms·
While true, this is still well below the upper bound of quality JPG is capable of.
by apetresc 10y ago
While true, this is still well below the upper bound of quality JPG is capable of.
- phonon 10y agoOK, "for a given data budget". The image in question is compressed 13:1 PNG would match that size and be lossless.
- phonon 10y agoHere is a similar version and size of the jpeg logo, that I created from a clean source. It is about 40% smaller (in bits) than the jpeg. http://i.imgur.com/DlJ2uFX.png http://i.imgur.com/DlJ2uFX.png
- apetresc 10y agoAgain, I'm not disagreeing that PNG is better. I'm saying that, even if you insist on JPG, you can still do much better than what Amazon's got going on 90% of their splash pages.
- phonon 10y agoWell, here's my jpeg attempt (PS, Save for Web), at the same file size that Amazon used. http://i.imgur.com/lmHd51x.jpg http://i.imgur.com/lmHd51x.jpg Yeah, they could do better :-)