<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Google might not have a JPG killer</title>
		<description>Discuss Google might not have a JPG killer</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:48:11 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20379/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>LokiSaytr says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5672</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How does this compare to JPEG 2000, which compresses better that jpeg, and is capable of transparencies and lossless compression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LokiSaytr</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:30:27 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5672</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>thetruth says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5287</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No, dude... PNG is the way forward.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>thetruth</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:08:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5287</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Haberlandt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5127</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What I don't like about jpg format is that it's lossy (80% quality) by default. You can set it to be lossless, but most people don't know about this so they just save their images using lossy jgp compression, which is the reason why there are a lot of crappy quality pictures out there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Haberlandt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:55:55 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5127</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>hoohoo says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5125</link>
			<description><![CDATA[JPEG is an acronym for "Joint Photographic Experts Group". That group included computer people, photography people, neurologists and psychologists. They figured out what parts of the data in a 24 bit RGB representation of a photograph are most important to the human eye & brain. Then they designed a compression scheme that discards most of the data that is not so important. The result is a scheme that present Google's thing does seem to have better compression, but it does not take into account how human perception works. There are a number of side by side comparisons on the web of the two formats that show how Google's scheme fails relative to JPEG in rendering photographic images.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>hoohoo</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:07:00 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5125</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>canerpense says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5112</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jason Garret-Glaser Who uses JPEG? BMP FTW!!!1110]]></description>
			<dc:creator>canerpense</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:50:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5112</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>thematrix606 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5080</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You call this an article? "which it claims can reduce the file size of lossy images making the image look pants." Honestly, make it readable for all the viewers you British &*(#&$. You're pants and a skirt.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>thematrix606</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:50:58 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5080</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5078</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Farrell will spew out anything to trash his favorite targets. It's usually some tripe about Apple, but sometimes it's Google (unless it's about Android being better than iOS). In this "article" he just repeated the critique of someone who obviously knows a lot more about imaging and added his own misspellings to it. Yes, it's a blog, get over it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:00:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5078</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Calabros says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5077</link>
			<description><![CDATA[this guy historically hates Google]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Calabros</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:12:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20379-google-might-not-have-a-jpg-killer#comment-5077</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
