Timeline for Why doesn't PNG show more detail than JPEG in a converted NASA image?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aug 30, 2023 at 7:53 | comment | added | U. Windl | I tend to disagree: Images with some irregular fine structure (like "grass") sometimes look rather "muddy" even for high-quality JPEG. I usually shoot JPG with my camera, but for some images I did regret that afterwards. | |
Nov 29, 2016 at 0:36 | comment | added | thomasrutter | @MichaelBorgwardt At a high enough quality level, you shouldn't be able to see JPEG artifacts in any content, even text. Here is a JPEG of this text. The artifacts will be there, but should not be visible without zooming to the individual pixel level and/or measuring with tools. | |
Nov 25, 2016 at 11:32 | comment | added | Michael Borgwardt | @thomasrutter: it also depends on the image content. Even at the maximum quality level, you will see JPEG artifacts e.g. in the text of a screenshot of this webpage. But in photos (which are naturally "noisy" and tend not to have sharp edges) they disappear. | |
Nov 24, 2015 at 23:34 | comment | added | thomasrutter | To summarise, JPEG allows you to set varying levels of quality when compressing. When using a high enough quality level JPEG should be visually indistinguishable from lossless compression like PNG. Another way of saying that is that at high enough quality levels, JPEG artifacts should not be visible to the human eye. | |
Nov 24, 2015 at 20:17 | comment | added | mattdm | @Gaetano What Michael is saying that at low levels of compression, these artifacts are minor and hard or impossible to identify by eye. See this and this for some more background. | |
Nov 24, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Gaetano | Thanks Michael...and what about JPEG artifacts? from what i understand RAW or PNG should not show artifacts that compression can create... | |
Nov 24, 2015 at 12:51 | history | answered | Michael Borgwardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |