Talk:Lossy compression

message: The information in the image captions is confusing and seems to conflict with itself.
:Original Image (lossless PNG, 60.1 KB size) — uncompressed is 108.5 KB
If it is 108.5 KB when uncompressed, then how can the original, lossless image be 60.1 KB?
:Low compression (84% less information than uncompressed PNG, 9.37 KB)
So... is this compressed to 84% or 16% of the original file size? Is 9.37 KB the loss of information or the compressed file size?
:Medium compression (92% less information than uncompressed PNG, 4.82 KB)
:High compression (98% less information than uncompressed PNG, 1.14 KB)
I have doubts about the accuracy of these numbers because, to me, the examples of low and medium compression don't seem to differ from the original image at all. I am also concerned that "low" compression is said to reduce the file size from 60.1 KB (or is it 108.5 KB?) to a mere 9.37 KB without any apparent loss. To me, a loss of 84% of data is not low and should create visible degradation. --Humanist Geek (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Captions 

message: I think the examples used in this article should be larger (or at least have links to larger versions) so people can easily examine the images and note the differences between the examples.--Humanist Geek (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Size 

message: What do you think? --Shlomital 11:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend throwing out the medium compression example and replace the high compression with one not quite so high, maybe 96 or 97%, pick one that shows apparent distortion, but not as extreme as 98%. 199.125.109.15 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement Proposal

message: For the images in the article, the compression isn't linear is it? Isn't it rounded so that at a certain point there is not much of a difference even if it is compressed more? And that in the beginning, compression saves more than is taken. 70.111.218.254 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression 

message: This page really needs a mention of transcoding and a link, but I don't have the time nor knowledge to really do it justice. disastrophe 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcoding

message: you cannot compress lost information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.156.7 (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF people? 

message: I've always hated the term "lossy compression" but for some reason it stuck. Throwing information away to get a smaller file size is not the same as compressing it. The algorithms involved may be just as intensive but the overall result is not the same, so the term is a misnomer. If I were to take a foam ball in hand and squeaze it to make it smaller that would be true compression. Release the hand and the ball returns to its ORIGINAL size. If I carve the ball down all I have is a smaller ball. Each ending result has its own advantages but loss of any kind should not be associated with compression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake5150 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages aren't the place for personal opinions but I'd note that when words carry over into different domains, their meanings often change in subtle ways. More importantly, the idea that compression in the physical world always means the item can return to its original state doesn't seem to be supported by the common definition of the term. Our own article Compression (physics) current version says  Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lossy "COMPRESSION" 

message: I appreciate the inclusion of transform coding and understand the relevance of perceptual data vs actual data. That being said, ANY data that is discarded is ONLY a reduction in file size. I'm not knocking the result...but can we change the name to something else ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake5150 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transform coding 

message: Something looks wrong about the dog images.  The Low compression picture is blurrier than the Medium compression image.  For instance, on the left of the image, the background green has blurry brown spots in the "low" setting but clear brown spots in the original and the medium.  Also on the left of the picture, the grey tufts on the dogs ear are clear strands in the original and medium image, but just a blur on the low compression image.  It looks like the medium and low have been mixed up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.177.154 (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially, I thought the pictures were accidentally swapped, but it appears that the low compression picture is of a lower resolution than the medium compression image, causing it to appear blurry when stretched. --37.251.25.20 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the images should be a different level of compression of the same original image. The fact that two different resolutions are being used only makes things confusing. I also came to here to mention the fact that the images appeared swapped. However, it seems more significant updating is needed. Golmschenk (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog images look wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lossy compression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051003204116/http://membled.com/work/apps/lossy_png/ to http://membled.com/work/apps/lossy_png/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified