Aaron Sherber wrote:
[snip]> Also -- and I admit this isn't particularly relevant
here -- comparing
file sizes isn't really an adequate way of comparing the files. You're
saying that because one file is only a few bytes bigger or smaller,
there can't be much difference between the two. But of course, even if
the two JPGs were exactly the same size, the actual data could be wildly
different.
[snip]
While I agree that the actual data within the file could be
wildly different between two differently saved files, I
would think that opening a file which was originally 100%
(zero compression) and then compressing that 50% and saving
the file, shouldn't the resulting file be significantly
smaller than the original? And then if you open that 50%
compressed file and then do a new save at 50% compression,
shouldn't this 3rd file be significantly smaller than the
2nd file? But in reality is there a significant difference
in additional saves at 50% compression? If there is, then
there should be a visible degradation, even if it's only
viewable at a percentage such as 200% or more when viewing
the newly compressed file.
--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
