[xep-support] JPG compression?

Clay Leeds cleeds at medata.com
Mon Feb 24 13:26:04 PST 2003


Clay Leeds wrote:
> Nikolai Grigoriev wrote:
> 
>> JPEG is generally not the best format for line art containing
>> sharp edges - it tends to create transition effects ("JPEG artifacts").
>> Edge fuzziness is inherent for the type of compression used in JPEG;
>> there's nothing to do. You may consider other, non-lossy formats
>> instead. For example, PNG is equally efficient with XEP: unless
>> there are some special features like gamma, interlacing, or alpha 
>> channel,
>> the data are copied transparently from the input file to the resulting
>> PDF, generating no overhead even for big images.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nikolai Grigoriev
>> RenderX
> 
> I had some problems with "fuzziness" with my JPG images. Then I realized 
> that I was printing at +300dpi, and the JPG had a 72dpi resolution. I 
> changed my JPG to 300dpi, and much of the fuzziness went away. That 
> said, TIFF or PNG might improve the clarity, although SVG might be even 
> better (I think SVG is supported by XEP?).

I should add, that I had to convert my original vector/EPS drawing to 
300dpi. Starting from a 72dpi and moving to 300dpi shrinks the size of 
your image by 50% or more (garbage in, garbage out ;-). I had to start 
with a larger version of my logo, then convert to 300dpi. I hope this is 
relevant to the discussion and helps!

Web Maestro Clay
-- 
Clay Leeds - cleeds at medata.com
Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc

-------------------
(*) To unsubscribe, send a message with words 'unsubscribe xep-support'
in the body of the message to majordomo at renderx.com from the address
you are subscribed from.
(*) By using the Service, you expressly agree to these Terms of Service http://www.renderx.com/tos.html



More information about the Xep-support mailing list