Export to docx

[Egg Bramhill]

[QUOTE=Also JPG can be lossy, but only if you save the same JPG file multiple times.[/QUOTE]

I'm not even sure this is true. I've tried saving a photo as a jpg at 85%. Deleted the original, loaded the new one. Saved again.

Repeated this step 10 times.

Putting the original alongside the 10th saved copy I can't see any difference, can you?

I believe the way jpg compression works is it looks for areas of similar colour and changes that block of pixels to a single colour. So I imagine having this done once leaves little leeway to have it done again on subsequent saves.

[willdean]

You might find this very old, very long and rambling post by me useful:

http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthre...ork-to-MS-Word

[mwenz]

I'm not even sure this is true. I've tried saving a photo as a jpg at 85%. Deleted the original, loaded the new one. Saved again.

Repeated this step 10 times.

Putting the original alongside the 10th saved copy I can't see any difference, can you?

I believe the way jpg compression works is it looks for areas of similar colour and changes that block of pixels to a single colour. So I imagine having this done once leaves little leeway to have it done again on subsequent saves.

Yes, it can.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm

Was the first quick hit that has a decent explanation of possible effects in a true/false format.

[Egg Bramhill]

JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved.

True. If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation.

The important word in this statement is EDITED. I didn't say anything about editing, just commented on the fact of saving multiple times. Here's two images, one the original the other saved 30 times as explained above.

Can someone tell me which, right or left, is the original and which is the 30 times saved one?

[handrawn]

I think you guys are talking at cross-purposes - what would be the point of saving a jpg multiple times if it had not been edited? - I stick to PNG as far as is possible so I don't even have to worry about it, that's all

[mwenz]

I think you guys are talking at cross-purposes...

Not talking at cross-purposes at all.

I think that article lays out reasonably well the actions that trigger degradation. That was my only real point of responding. What constitutes editing within any given application may be a subject specific to applications that do not link to an image but rather embed it and save it in its native, often compressed, format.

I could really care less about the subject as pertains to the direction this thread has drifted.

The point of the thread is getting text and images out of Xara products and into Word. Fact is that XDP, from what I could asses, simply uses either a down sampled copy of what is embedded or a screen representation of what is embedded. There's no good reason for this and it shouldn't do that.

[handrawn]

Mike - the article you linked to supports what egg says, all I was saying...

[mwenz]

I wasn't trying to contradict Egg per se. And I wasn't trying to support what he was saying, either. It was just a link for information that I thought clarified both points of view towards JPEG files in general. I did use Egg's post as a spring board and what I quoted was not clear (to me) as to what he meant by all the opening and resaving.

I don't know what constitutes "editing" of a bitmap in XDP. Nor do I even know if it is still a JPEG in XDP's after it is saved as a XAR file. Nor do I know that if I edit a JPEG in an external image editing application and subsequently import it into XDP, whether XDP further compresses the JPEG.

Mike

[handrawn]

somewhere I think I read, but it is a long time ago and I may be mis-remembering, that embedded images in XAR 'are held and compressed in PNG format' - as PNG is lossless, a conversion from JPG to PNG and back may have no effect if that is the case...but it's an open question...

[Egg Bramhill]

Hi peeps, this is getting a bit too deep. I'm not on a crusade re jpg's, just wanting to point out that each time you export your website numerous times the jpg quality remains constant every time unless an edit is made.

Put as simply as I can, I've often wondered over the years if just the simple operation of resaving a file containing jpg's degrades the image the more it is saved? I'm just stating it doesn't.

My apologies for taking the thread off topic.