On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:50:56 -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 05/21/2008 03:02 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> I've noticed that some 40K byte jpeg files are very good, as good as
>> ones ten times the size, and that others are awful. The question
>> naturally arises about the proper way to further compre
On 05/21/2008 03:02 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
I've noticed that some 40K byte jpeg files are very good, as good as ones
ten times the size, and that others are awful. The question naturally
arises about the proper way to further compress the large images to save
disk space.
What image compress
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:04:41 +0100, michael wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 20:02 +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> I've noticed that some 40K byte jpeg files are very good, as good as
>> ones ten times the size, and that others are awful. The question
>> naturally arises about the proper way to furth
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 20:02 +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> I've noticed that some 40K byte jpeg files are very good, as good as ones
> ten times the size, and that others are awful. The question naturally
> arises about the proper way to further compress the large images to save
> disk space.
>
4 matches
Mail list logo
