Re: [xep-support] JPG compression?

From: Clay Leeds (
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:26:04 PST

  • Next message: Peter Drivas: "RE: [xep-support] JPG compression?"

    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 -
    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 - 13:18:57 PST