Reading Response 4 - Frank

The jpeg file format has always been my go to for image compression. When I first started using the file type I was unaware that the files were extremely compressed; in fact, I had even considered jpegs to be a high quality format. It was only until taking a digital photography class that I learned that there was a quality difference between file types, with jpegs at the bottom of the list. Reading Cory Arcangel’s paper “On Compression” has been fascinating from an intellectual perspective. It has enabled me to appreciate the file compression process and become aware that there is a reason jpegs have such low quality. 

In a way, it is baffling that the quality difference between jpeg files and higher quality file types goes largely unnoticed by the naked eye. Given the amount of money the consumer economy pours into having more technologically advanced “gear” like cell phones and cameras, one would think that we are paying extra for something that is glaringly obvious. Seeing how popular the jpeg file format is, this statement is clearly untrue. Of course, there are those individuals who have been trained or are naturally able to pick up on the minute differences. However, for what reason do the masses like myself have for continuing to buy newer cellphones that boast of newer and better camera features?

Anyway, the process by which jpegs are compressed is fascinating. Who ever thought of deconstructing an image using 8x8 base images is a genius. As Cory explained, this saves a significant amount of space after running it through a 2D DCT formula because all the nonexistent or less valuable blocks in the 8x8 matrix are omitted. The compression process does ruin the quality of the image, but it is largely unnoticeable to most people. The compressed image is also more portable and multiple of them can be sent through e-mail as opposed to mail!

Can you tell the difference in quality in these images? I can't.