TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Hogs (Really JPEG vs. GIF) From:"Steven J. Owens" <puff -at- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:32:56 -0800
I think the attributionn is correct, but the quoting is getting a bit fuzzy:
Roy Anderson wrote:
>>> Insofar as the photographs are concerned, try saving them as JPEG with
>>> a competent photo tool and reducing their quality to a lower but fully
>>> acceptable level. You can save much RAM doing this.
> Hayward Johnson wrote:
>> Actually, GIFs are more efficient, size-wise, and more compliant
>> web-wise. And: PaintShop Pro (way less pricey than a photo tool)
>> handles photos pretty darn well.
And then Roy Anderson writes:
> Hayward, I assumed Robert was speaking of printed catalogs, not
> online catalogs. JPEG is still--IMHO--a better tool than GIF for
> maintaining photographic image fidelity for photographs targeted for
> print. This is also true if one wishes to exhibit quality
> photographic images on the web, regardless of how viewers might
> react to the slow display times that might be involved. GIF is more
> suitable for the web, particularly if icons, clip art, lower-quality
> photographs, and fast download times are of major consideration.
> Assumptions are dangerous in this business, correct? :-)
Maybe some hard facts will clear up some of the confusion? GIFs
use run-length lossless compression, JPEGs use lossy compression. I'm
going to keep it simple because a) I don't know *all* the details :-)
and b) I'm sure most people reading this don't want to know all the
details. Doubtless somebody here knows a lot more than I do about
the topic and will want to leap in with corrections...
As I said above, GIFS use run-length compression. The image is
on your screen as a long series of numbers, each number representing
the color values for a single pixel. Run-length compression searches
for "runs" of the same value and replaces them with a code saying
"Repeat this value X times". GIFs do this for each line, and then
keep track of the lines done so far, and if the next line is
identical, just replaces the entire line with a code saying "Use line
This approach to compression makes GIFs "lossless", meaning all
of the actual data is preserved, and it also makes them better for
line art and the like, since art created in a drawing program is much
more likely to have evenly colored areas that will compress more
effectively than highly textured areas, like a photograph.
JPEGs work by trying to reproduce the change in color from one
part of the image to another. So instead of encoding a section of
the image as, say:
"dark red 5 times, medium red 10 times, light red 20 times"
...a JPEG will code it as a value of red starting this dark at
one spot and then progressing in a curve to this light at another
spot. Actually, to be more specific, JPEG compression looks at the
image in 8x8 pixel blocks and encodes each block to represent the
change in color across the block.
JPEG compression is also skewed to worry more about things the
human eye is good at seeing (like luminance, or how bright the color
is) and less about things the human eye is not so good at seeing (like
like chrominance, or exact color shading issues).
In an odd sense, this amounts to trying to record _what it looks
like_, rather than what the actual values are.
JPEG compression is "lossy", which means that some of the actual
data is lost in the compression method. Specifically, like I said
above, it throws away data it doesn't think is as important. This is
one reason why JPEG isn't as good for line art - line art isn't built
the way JPEG is designed to think about images.
By the way, if you *really* want to know how JPEGs work,
everything you need is at: