Re: [xep-support] JPG compression?

From: Clay Leeds (
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:07:54 PST

  • Next message: Clay Leeds: "Re: [xep-support] JPG compression?"

    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?).

    Clay Leeds -
    Web Developer - Medata, Inc. -
    PGP Public Key:
    (*) To unsubscribe, send a message with words 'unsubscribe xep-support'
    in the body of the message to from the address
    you are subscribed from.
    (*) By using the Service, you expressly agree to these Terms of Service

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:01:15 PST