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

[Andi Clemens]

Well in this case I wouldn't drop speed... it really keeps users away from 
digiKam if it feels like running on an old 486 or PII PC.

Andi

On Sunday 14 June 2009 18:45:26 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> Digikam-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel