In a message dated 2/6/2001 4:40:24 AM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> I've just tried to do some sort of meaningful comparison of originals
> versus JPG's at 100% quality, and the results are here - no apologies for a
> hastily knocked up, ugly, web-page ;( :
A more valid test is to compress the whole .tif file down so that
the resultant size is 1/7 of the uncompressed .tif file.
Then convert the jpeg file back to tiff (or png) and crop that
file. It isn't as valid of a test to be compressing 80x50
files - a lot of the file size in this file is jpeg overhead and the block
sizes in the vertical direction aren't a factor of 8.
That said, it sure is hard to see any difference between the
images you posted on the web site.