5 ms·
Am I the only person who is sensitive to JPEG artifacts? Look at this image from the article. Why did they use such low quality JPEG? http://blogs.windows.com/
by Aardwolf 13y ago
Am I the only person who is sensitive to JPEG artifacts? Look at this image from the article. Why did they use such low quality JPEG?
http://blogs.windows.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-59-33-metablogapi/clip_5F00_image002_5F00_2073DC23.jpg http://blogs.windows.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver...
- kamjam 13y agoThat's how you get your 11% performance gains!
- adivik2000 13y agoHaha. I was kinda thinking if Kraken.io was the culprit there for a bit. ;)
- 0x0 13y agoThey probably compressed it on quality level 11%
- ye 13y agoWhy did they use JPEG at all? It's a perfect image for PNG. Pure incompetence.
- lambda 13y agoWow. No, you're not the only one. Those are some of the worst compression artifacts I've seen in an actual image that wasn't just a compression demo that I've seen in years.
- harpastum 13y agoJPEG from article, 18,873 bytes: http://blogs.windows.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-59-33-metablogapi/clip_5F00_image002_5F00_2073DC23.jpg http://blogs.windows.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver... PNG grabbed from actual site: 19,764 bytes: http://f.cl.ly/items/3w3k2O3n0y0v2W0L1p40/lossless.png http://f.cl.ly/items/3w3k2O3n0y0v2W0L1p40/lossless.png About the same size, much better looking.