JPEG implementation has changed a lot I think. The way I understand
it, loading and saving no longer does anything if nothing is changed
in the image, and only the changed pixels in an updated image are
saved in good software like that in Photoshop. So it does take a long
chain of events to degrade a high quality JPEG.
There also seems to be a lot of variation in the implementation of
the quality levels. There was a camera that had been criticized in
some reviews for the high compression level of its best quality JPEG,
but a couple of reviewers actually looked at the images and were
surprised they could find no JPEG artifacts.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Actually, if the truth be known, it takes a lot of saving, loading and
> resaving before there is any degradation visible on a print for a high
> quality level JPEG.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|