> that's 4x the pixels (and bytes.) I don't think this is true -- I don't think the compressed size tends to scale linearly with the raw # of pixels. I did a f

> that's 4x the pixels (and bytes.) I don't think this is true -- I don't think the compressed size tends to scale linearly with the raw # of pixels. I did a few tests and saw that using the same compression settings on the larger image typically resulted in an image 3x the size. There was a post I saw that showed up on HN a while ago claiming you might be better off just using highly-compressed high resolution images for both high-DPI and normal-DPI displays: http://blog.netvlies.nl/design-interactie/retina-revolution/ http://blog.netvlies.nl/design-interactie/retina-revolution/ And the previous HN discussion, since there was a fair bit of disagreement: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623160 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623160