|Posted by:||Joy Beeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|Date:||Thu, 20 Aug 2020|
Background: I put a back-up copy of a book I was writing in the space
my server allowed for a Web site, then I decided that I might as well
link to it, then I needed to use the word appliqué a lot and
started converting ASCII files to hypertext -- a job still in progress
-- then I started photographing some of the things I was talking about
and posting pictures between paragraphs. (The pictures are cropped
and scaled to a uniform width of 600 pixels.)
I've been using JPG exclusively because that what I get out of my
Yesterday I wanted to photograph a letter-size piece of paper on which
I'd drawn a pattern, and realized that the right way was to scan it.
My scanner offers JPG, TIF, and PNG. I made one scan in each format.
JPG: 35 389 KB
TIF: 98 666 KB
PNG: 77 107 KB
Then I tried to open the files in Firefox so that I could compare
them. Firefox couldn't open the TIF file, so that ruled out using the
TIFF copy, which I was already dubious about because ninety-eight
thousand kilobytes is a lot of space.
Then I blinked back and forth between the JPG and the PNG and couldn't
see the slightest bit of difference, not on shrink to fit screen and
not on 100%. (Which is *huge*; maybe I should reduce the resolution
of the scanner.
So what do I get for the extra thirty-seven thousand KB PNG costs, and
what is each of these formats good for?
I believe that in theory a line drawing takes up less space in GIF
than in JPG. The scanner doesn't do GIF.
So I stopped here to load the JPG into GIMP and export it as GIF:
GIF: 26 182 KB
Again, my blink comparator shows no difference whatsoever between the
I'd already deleted the two rejected formats.
Would I get better results if I exported one of the other two formats
into GIF? Enough better to re-scan the pattern?
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
The above message is a Usenet post.