3 ms·
Did he mean it literally, or just that you can fiddle with compression until you don't notice any artefacts? At that point, it's as good as lossless for most us
by getonit 16y ago
Did he mean it literally, or just that you can fiddle with compression until you don't notice any artefacts? At that point, it's as good as lossless for most uses, IMHO.
- masklinn 16y ago> At that point, it's as good as lossless for most uses, IMHO. It's not, and the size of the file blows up to insane levels.
- getonit 16y agoCould you then give me a common use where a loss not noticeable to the human eye is, in fact, important?
- tiddchristopher 16y agoWhen saving and closing an image, only to realize you need need to change something, thus necessitating a second save, which compounds loss. Granted, if you keep a lossless file around to edit, your problem is gone. But does everyone really do that with every file?
- getonit 16y agoThat's the only one I could imagine encountering, and if I've not saved the original, serves me right AFAIC. But then, if I save the second with a higher-than-otherwise-optimal setting, then I can reduce the compounding of effects. It's cost me filesize to limit loss to the imperceptible, but it's still possible.