On 12/4/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No. Dejavu is, by a mile.
[snip]
Even at losslevel 200 zoomed way in, I'd be hard
pressed to tell the
original from the djvu.
[snip]
Pardon my overactive send button.. I guess I should be fair and give examples:
http://72.165.205.81/djvuex.gif
And while the properly compressed png (
http://72.165.205.81/p3.png)
weighs in at 70% more (335KiB) than the TIFF, the TIFF is 470% larger
than the lossy djvu you might use if you really cared about size.
Or in, perhaps more useful terms: Assuming this page is typical, with
a 28.8K modem PNG is 34 pages *per hour*, TIFF is 51 pages per hour,
lossless djvu 92 pages per hour, and high lossy djvu is 360 pages per
hour. So a typical reader on dialup could outread the transmission of
both PNG and TIFF, a fast reader (383 WPM) would just keep up with
lossless djvu, and a freak like Kat Walsh might would need the super
lossy in order to not sit waiting. :) At DSL/Cable or T1 speeds even
the fastest human reader couldn't read as fast as PNGs would transfer.
