Compressed or uncompressed?greenspun.com : LUSENET : FlashPix Format : One Thread
I was wondering what kind of impact compression makes on the image quality of FlashPix files? I use Paintshop Pro 5 and have tried saving the same file at various levels of compression and at no compression, but I can't see any noticeable difference. However, I have a cheap-o monitor and graphics card so those elements have to be factored in when considering my comparison images.
I scan family pictures for archive purposes, distribution among family members, and for future printing purposes (at Kinko's on their Fiery). I've always used LZW-compressed TIF because it is lossless (right?) and does a decent job of compressing the file sizes, but I recently discovered this new format and it's very interesting.
Also, I've read that FlashPix borrowed from JPEG technology. What are the differences between the two if any? In addition, how will FlashPix features/benefits weigh against the upcoming JPEG2000 format I've been hearing about?
Thanks for your time,
-- Tom Ta (email@example.com), May 10, 1999
(1) JPEG 2000 - Digital Imaging Org. is working closely with the JPEG group to incorporate features of FPX to JPEG 2000. FPX supports JPEG compression - so it might be that it will support JPEG 2000 as well OR the other way around.
(2) Difference in compression - try printing the images - you might see the differences. If not, try zooming and see how much artifacts you can identify with the compressed formats.
PSP 5.01 - I am not sure if it supports the multiple-resolution format of FPX or simply saves the image as one resolution. Try FPX-aware products such as Ulead's and LivePicture or Picture Easy and see, there might be some differences.
-- Rommel Feria (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 12, 1999.