4 ms·
I remember white/black-dithering (at even twice the dpi) being a lot smaller than the greyscale jpeg, when I was scanning documents. Greyscale was a bit smalle
by arh68 2y ago
I remember white/black-dithering (at even twice the dpi) being a lot smaller than the greyscale jpeg, when I was scanning documents. Greyscale was a bit smaller than full color, but dithered was a big step up (er, down).
- kccqzy 2y agoWhen I scanned a lot of documents about ten years ago, I empirically found that JBIG2 is so much better than anything else including JPEG. That's specially optimized for scanning text documents.
- gwbas1c 2y agoWhat were you storing? If the image was predominately black and white, this would make sense.
- omoikane 2y agoI was honestly expecting this to be an article about grayscale versus dithered black and white, where the answer to "do grayscale images take less space" could go either way. Instead, it's an article about grayscale versus sRGB.
- crazygringo 2y agoFor text documents with line drawings? For sure, absolutely -- especially when it's JBIG compression like fax machines use (or even Group 4 before that). If it's a full scale photograph full of grayscales that's been dithered, then it's a harder comparison to make. Because obviously a ton of useful detail is lost in the dithering, in a way that isn't with lines and letterforms. So the comparison would really have to be with a terrible, blocky JPEG super-compressed file. In theory the JPEG should win.