cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 month agoWebplemmy.mlimagemessage-square11linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down11 cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up10arrow-down1imageWebplemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square11linkfedilink cross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squaretyler@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoBut that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
minus-squareflamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoLossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
minus-squareCarighan Maconar@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoWatch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
minus-squarevithigar@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month agoXerox did that ages ago. https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
But that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
Lossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
Watch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
Xerox did that ages ago.
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning