Re: GIF vs JPEG

leo@aimtech.com (leo@aimtech.mv.com)
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 21:16:35 +0100

> On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, Steve Knipping wrote:
>
> >
> > We all know that there are far more GIFs on the web than JPEG. If JPEG
> > files are smaller, why wouldn't we want to use them. What browsers don't
> > support JPEG?
>
> If you'll so a little more research on the JPEG format, you'll find out
> that it is just a compressed GIF. So, the main reason why most people
> don't use JPEGs in their Web pages is due to the time it takes to
> overhead in loading the JPEG file. To some, especially me, it just isn't
> worth it.
>

JPEG is not a compressed GIF! JPEG is an excellent format to compress true
color natural images. JPEG images may or may not be smaller than GIF images
depending on how high the compression parameters are set but JPEG will generally
be smaller for most images. The lossy compression technique used by JPEG may
blur important details of an image such as fine text. JPEG may take
longer to display than a GIF image depending on the speed and color resolution
of the client. Information providers have to make plenty of decisions on
how to present their information, JPEG vs GIF is just one more.

Leo Lucas