cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 months agoWebplemmy.mlimagemessage-square11linkfedilinkarrow-up13arrow-down10
arrow-up13arrow-down1imageWebplemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square11linkfedilink
minus-squaretyler@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 months agoBut that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
minus-squareflamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoLossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
minus-squareCarighan Maconar@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoWatch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
minus-squarevithigar@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 months 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