Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 443449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-26
If I flick between them there is zero visible difference. I checked in matlab and the difference is really really really small (actually over half the pixels are identical).
Well, yeah - it wasn't visible enough to make a difference to me. Furthermore, if I saw them side by side, they would be identical. But when you're swapping back and forth between the two images in the exact same window you start to see very minor pixel-level differences. Nothing I would consider a "deal breaker" though. Mainly I was pointing out that the scaled down thumbnail versions did indeed display more differences than I saw when I viewed the full size images - and indicated that I believe the browser scaling for different image formats may be different.
The worst part is that the JPG was used as the source for the WebP - that was a poor choice for producing comparison images on.
Edited 2010-10-01 20:50 UTC