<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PNG vs JPEG</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/08/png-vs-jpeg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/08/png-vs-jpeg/</link>
	<description>The blog of John D. Cook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:10:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/08/png-vs-jpeg/comment-page-1/#comment-37792</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 15:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1227#comment-37792</guid>
		<description>For those looking for more information, download the source for libjpeg and read the notes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those looking for more information, download the source for libjpeg and read the notes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/08/png-vs-jpeg/comment-page-1/#comment-30813</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1227#comment-30813</guid>
		<description>More specifically, I believe that JPEG uses the discrete cosine transform, which is similar to but different from just using a discrete Fourier transform.

Also, JPEG-2000 uses the wavelet transform, which is fundamentally different than a Fourier-related technique.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More specifically, I believe that JPEG uses the discrete cosine transform, which is similar to but different from just using a discrete Fourier transform.</p>
<p>Also, JPEG-2000 uses the wavelet transform, which is fundamentally different than a Fourier-related technique.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/08/png-vs-jpeg/comment-page-1/#comment-19780</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1227#comment-19780</guid>
		<description>I understand what you are saying but you are not comparing apples to apples here and I think that can be a little misleading. 

You can still use JPG and have good looking quality images by not turning the compression up so high: &lt;a href=&quot;http://solidfull.com/demo/jpg_vs_PNG2.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See this example JPG file&lt;/a&gt;

In this case, the stick figure image file is actually smaller using PNG but in certain cases such as photos the JPG file will actually be smaller. I respect the PNG file&#039;s ability to do transparency in most browsers but still thing JPG files have their place. For example, I noticed your photo of the ship Endeavour is a JPG file instead of a PNG file.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand what you are saying but you are not comparing apples to apples here and I think that can be a little misleading. </p>
<p>You can still use JPG and have good looking quality images by not turning the compression up so high: <a href="http://solidfull.com/demo/jpg_vs_PNG2.jpg" rel="nofollow">See this example JPG file</a></p>
<p>In this case, the stick figure image file is actually smaller using PNG but in certain cases such as photos the JPG file will actually be smaller. I respect the PNG file&#8217;s ability to do transparency in most browsers but still thing JPG files have their place. For example, I noticed your photo of the ship Endeavour is a JPG file instead of a PNG file.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.651 seconds -->

