Re: Ex-Sperry-ment #4: 463

You have a lot of things going on in the four images posted, image dimensions, JPEG compression, and file sizes. I decided to conduct my own experiment, with the objective to compare image dimension reduction vs jpeg compression to reduce file size. So, I opened my raw test image and processed it two ways to get the file size down: 1) reduce jpeg compression while saving it full-sized, and 2) reduce image dimensions to 1024 width and sharpen, with jpeg compression set to 98.

I got JPEG images of comparable size, 394Kb for the full-size image, 414Kb for the 1024-width image. This screenshot tells the real story:



#1 on the left, #2 on the right.

I'm not a big fan of JPEG compression, but I have to say that if one wants to preserve details for inspection but reduce file size to something manageable, it would seem to make sense to compress a full-sized image rather than resize it...