On 8/26/14 7:06 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:02 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
jpg is the better choice.
No.
http://www.rastertovector.com/r2v-articles/why-jpeg-files-are-bad-for-raster...
Whoa, Martin, we've gotten our wires crossed here somewhere. Vectorizing a JPG or any other raster graphic is the last thing I would do. I learned that so many years ago. LOL Depending on the content of the graphic, some autotracers can do a credible job. There's a section of doing this with Inkscape in the manual. I've not had a reason to test it, though.
I meant, but it was obviously unclear, that JPG was the better choice for us over PNG. Wondering about the supposed advantages of PNG over JPG we did some quick searching, and other than being a lossless file format, and supporting transparency, was the only major advantages. The article said, that under the right circumstances, JPG would actually produce a superior result.
A lossless file format is virtually of no use for us. Transparency, maybe. In that case, if a PNG didn't exist, it's easily created with conversion routines.
Interesting... Thunderbird failed to thread your message properly, took me a bit to figure out what you'd snipped. LOL