"Alfonso J. Lebrón-Bergés" wrote:

Reducing the size of the picture doesn't necessarily reduce the size in
bytes of a picture. You could get an even smaller picture than the
example below with a size of several MB if done in high resolution. By
the same token you could get one larger than the large below, with a
size of only 100K or less if done in low-res and using one of the
formats that squeeze more in less like JPEG or GIF. Forget about BMP and
the like. These are humungous and do not deliver enough quality for its
size in KB.

Alfonso Lebrón-Bergés

I am only considering jpg.

You are forgetting a few things Alfonso. One, the computer monitor 
screen has a fixed number of pixels per inch. Two you ain't got squat 
without OPTICAL zoom. The cheap Sony Mavica with 640 by 480 has 10X!!!
optical zoom. Very unusual for a cheap digital camera.
That means you have the same number of pixels in the picture
over a wide range of distances from the subject. A subtle concept
but worth thinking about.
 
Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org