[Digikam-devel] extragear/graphics/digikam/digikam

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> 2009/6/13 Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de>:
> >> Result are better than PGF, from speed and space consumption point...
> >
> > For me results with JPEG are better as well.
>
> For me, as Mik said, JPEG give artifact on thumbs, with 256x256 size,
> especially with image which have geometric forms (wall, houses,
> momuments) or high subject contrast as flowers taken in macro mode and
> with large zone with same colors ( it's not visible with complex
> images composition with high levels of details) . Sound like
> anti-aliasing is not visible.
>
> I tried 90 compression instead 85, but it still visible.
>
> I cannot see this problem with PGF...

I see this dilemma:

PGF: quality good, file size good, speed bad		+ + -
JPEG: quality bad, file size good, speed good	- + +
PNG: quality good, file size bad, speed good	+ - +

(JPEG2000 has the same properties in this listing as PGF but is slower, so I 
left it out)

It's pretty normal in life that you can't get everything you want, and here it 
seems we need to decide to sacrifice either quality, disk space or speed.

Marcel