A small GIF vs JPEG skirmish [Was: Re: COPYING FROM A WEB SITE!]

You are telling me that you are showing me a photograph in 256 colours
and expect me to believe that they "haven't suffered" compared to a
format which shows them in millions of colours?

There is *no way* that 256-GIF can beat the quality of 16-bit+ JPEG in
images like photographs etc.

GIF are proper for three uses only:
1. buttons etc.
   (small range of colour, GIF89a coding, ultra small filesize)
2. converted vector art
   (distinct colours, large bodies, better compression, small files)
3. animation
   (gif89a. which by the way might come under fire a few months down
   the line of the "animated JPEG" group becomes strong enough)

That is all I think... :)

[abhay]

----- Original Message -----
From: <DALLASSTA(at)aol.com>
To: <abhay(at)kushwaha.com>; <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: COPYING FROM A WEB SITE!


> I also have all of my images in .gif format, excepting my
> wallpaper. It saves space, and if they are interlaces and
> antialiased they should do alright! Mine haven't suffered by
> any means, and my site loads in half the time it did
> with the jpg images. Lisa

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA