On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:20:35AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > This means that 1.6301e+06 pixels are different. Is my method faulty? Can you > reproduce above findings? it seems that it depends on the images whether your method shows up differences -- i get a result of 0 for images i previously compressed down, but similar errors to yours for original photos. my conclusions therefore were based on bad examples and therefore incorrect. > After I found that imagemagick would always change the embedded jpeg I tried > using the -compress Zip option because that would obviously be lossless (but > result in a much larger file size). This is why it is listed in the README. > Maybe I should list above steps as well. that would be a good idea, especially given that imagemagick gets pretty close results filesize-wise, and sometimes hits pixel perfection. thanks for putting effort into this, and sorry for holding you up chrysn -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature