Gary Martin <garycmar...@googlemail.com> writes: > +1 though this is raises the question of what resolution would be good > enough. Ideally we would store images at the full display resolution, > and try to minimise the storage space tradeoff by being more > aggressive on compression.
+1 on storing in native display size. Folks with larger screens tend to have more permanent storage space, making the proportional increase in overhead less of an issue. The XO case is going to be the most interesting one in terms of storage overhead. I'm less enthusiastic about using lossy compression, however, especially since the goal was to be able to read the text in the screen shot. Most (all?) lossy compression algorithms are ill-suited for images with high contrast (e.g. text). Before we go for additional API to ask activities for previews (that would involve starting at least some part of the activity for Journal operations), we should ask deployments for statistics about data store entry sizes. I'm having a feeling an increase in storage overhead by a fixed amount is less of an issue. Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/
pgpGPmuJYfm5G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
