Watzman at neo.rr.com
Tue Aug 15 09:17:15 CDT 2006
> But doesn't JPEG use lossy compression?
Yes. You can adjust the "quality factor" but I think this
would be A Bad Choice. Especially given my original comment
that the documents are D-size reduced to B-size before printing
(i.e., the text/lines are VERY fine and apt to disappear
in the DCT application within the JPEG encoder.)"
Yes, it's lossy compression, but if you use a high-quality setting (which
was my point of 5K to 10K file size per square inch for color, or about 1/3
that for monochrome), you will never notice ANY difference. The size of the
document is irrelevant, since as I said, "5K to 10K ***PER SQUARE INCH***".
Larger documents produce larger files, but the quality loss for larger
documents is no greater than for smaller documents ... which is to say,
imperceptible. TRY IT, and compare the results. I suggest that you will
not notice ANY difference between JPEG and TIFF, no matter what you do, no
matter how you examine them. I have scanned nearly 40,000 pages now, plus
almost 10,000 color photographs, since 2001. There is no good reason to use
TIFF instead of JPEG, as long as you don't try to achieve excessive
compression levels with JPEG (and at 5K to 10K per square inch for color,
you won't be doing that -- that equates to 500K to 1 megabyte for an 8.5" x
11" color page). In fact, I often find that I can go down to less than 100k
bytes per page (that's down towards and below 1K per square inch), but this
is too much compression for some documents.
More information about the cctech