Quote:
Originally Posted by utack
There are only two I can think of[LIST][*]despite being technically more advanced you can still lose to a decades old legacy format when your encoder is terrible
|
Do you have a concrete example? Why is the encoder terrible?
Quote:
|
[*]it does not matter that your format is worse than the legacy competition,
|
Sample?
Quote:
|
Seriously the only area where it might be a tiny bit better is for ultra-high compression where it does not start falling apart as badly as jpeg, for any sane (mid ot high) image quality range the vast array of jpeg encoders are doing a significantly better job of retaining detail
|
Could be it because you're trying to recompress an already jpeg-encoded source? (aka, spurious resonance). This seems like an overly broad statement, otherwise.
skal/