- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:21:39 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> images more faithfully than JPEG. Neither GIF nor PNG, though, is both > smaller and better than JPEG for large screen shots of computer desktops, The sort of screen shots I'm thinking of are of application windows. There is a problem with the latest generation, that the only efficient graphices format would WMF or SVG, but there are still a lot of NT 4/ Window 98 generation applications around and these tend to produce much smaller GIFs than JPEGs, with the advantage that the text is sharp. Anything with a significant wallpaper content will not compress well with GIF or PNG, but will also need a very conservative JPEG compression, to minimise distortion of the, often very small, text. XP's own screens tend to break even between compromise compression JPEG and GIF; the tradeoff is between banding in colour gradients and distorted fine detail and text.
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:21:42 UTC