Andy Matthews wrote: > Rick... > > SMALL > Nearest: 5,580 > Bicubic: 5,566 > Explicit: 28,309 > > So while the final image looks better, it's because less image data is being > thrown away. The best test would be to get the quality of image generated by > the explicit code as close as possible to the other two then check for file > size.
Yeah I noticed that too. The optimum compression for the small images seems to be somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0 ... 0.8 creates a file about 5.5k .. 0.9 creates a file about 9k, and 1.0 creates the 28k file. The 9k image was definately better than the 5k image but still not as good as the 28k image.. obviously... So I'll keep playing with it and probably the image cfc will end up having some kind of compression options. Curiously, when I change the compression and re-run the script, the file size doesn't change unless I actually delete the file first. It's like java is writing new data to the existing file but leaving the the file the same size, even if it doesn't require as much space. rick ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230864 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
