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-ras...
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