Quote:
Originally Posted by andr113
I think, that quality depends on size. It's impossible to compress image without quality missing.
|
More so, or more accurately; quality depends on the amount of compression. The more a jpg is compressed, the smaller the file size will be and the lower the quality will be. Depending on the content and quality of the original file, some can be compressed quite a lot with very little loss in quality where you have to look pretty close to see any compression artifacts. For example; using IrfanView, when saving a jpg with the slider set to "100" results in a massive file size but of top quality, but you can move it as far down as only "65" or so and it looks almost exactly the same, you have to look pretty close to see any difference. Again, this depends on the image. If there is any text or graphics in the image you can certainly tell the difference then (and a gif may be better). But if it's of a landscape or similar, you may even be able to get it lower than 65. The file size difference can be HUGE too.