4 ms·

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF... JPEG looks

by Goosey 16y ago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF... JPEG looks better to me. It's only a data point of 1, but it's the most important data point to me. ;)

Groxx 16y ago
I've seen that picture before, and it's pretty indicative of its lower settings, yes. And I agree - the sharper & more accurate edges of 2000 make the less detailed / smoother textured interiors look disproportionately worse.
jacobolus 16y ago
Both of those compressed versions have (different kinds of) unacceptable artifacts, IMO. It'd be interesting to see comparisons at a few other levels of compression.