.JPG vs .JPF - Image formats compared.

    Date: 03/10/07 (Opera Browser)    Keywords: no keywords

    Allow me a moment to nerd out for a second to introduce (most of) you to the next generation of the jpeg format; JPF (a.k.a. JP2, JPEG2000, etc.) A picture is worth a thousand words, so lets start with that.

    A side-by-side comparison of JPEG & JPF.

    Click for larger image. (70KB)


    Both files are around 160KB, we have JPEG on the left and JPF on the right. JPF clearly has the advantage here, able to make use of every byte much more efficently than the older JPG format. Also JPF has more saving options like "lossless", a quality range from 100 to 0, or just pick your kilobyte size by typing it in & JPF will do the rest.

    Before you run off and convert your entire JPG collection to JPF, there are a few things you should know...
    1.) JPF requires a high quality, lossless source (like TIFF, BMP, RAW, PNG, etc) to produce a high quality compressed image.
    2.) If you recompress a lossy image (like JPG, GIF, ART, etc) in JPF you will see no quality increase.
    3.) JPF is not widely accepted yet. A few image viewers can read the format, but that's about it.
    4.) The quality range has changed considerably from JPG to JPF. An 80 quality JPG is about a 25 quality JPF.
    5.) JPF is much higher quality and generally wants to be much larger than JPG files, though this is easily controlled.

    What do you think? Any questions?

    Source: http://community.livejournal.com/opera_browser/64294.html

« Google Desktop || 9.2 released »


antivirus | apache | asp | blogging | browser | bugtracking | cms | crm | css | database | ebay | ecommerce | google | hosting | html | java | jsp | linux | microsoft | mysql | offshore | offshoring | oscommerce | php | postgresql | programming | rss | security | seo | shopping | software | spam | spyware | sql | technology | templates | tracker | virus | web | xml | yahoo | home