I think .png is better. Have not tested that extensively though. Anyone? Originals of course .jpg. I'm just used to convert fullres and 50% to .png and thumbnails to .jpg
There's some awesome stereo's in that pan too btw
Nico

You could take that 20Mb down to 5 or less with no obvious loss of quality with a JPG

Doug

.png and .jpg have their particular advantages but the main thing driving me right now to use .png is that saving and re-saving an image will not degrade quality, unlike to even highest quality .jpeg.
I might add some .jpg versions in the future for 100%'s like I do occasionally for 25% images but I'll also keep the .png's.
Nico

Oh of course, you always keep a copy in PNG/PSD or whatever format 'at home' as it were - but I only ever 'publish' online with a JPG - just because memories of 56k are not THAT distant

Doug

That is a fact. don't remind me
How fast is the average connection people are using these days anyway?
Statistics somewhere?
Nico

Agree, that's a good plan

BTW, my connection is fast enough, but I've thought it needn't be, also for your upload consumption.

Regarding PNG or JPEG generated from JPEG orginal pics, I remember as I was looking for Bonneville its visibility at West Spur (around sol 220), I tried for best visibility with PNGs from JPEG orginal pics by ~4 times magnified and higher. But I only could determine the PNGs save somewhat more color gradients without any better sharpness.
Therefore I think only differences in color gradient could catch someone's eye. But these images of Mars get rather little color gradients and little differences of color. If there would be a flower meadow, then probably would it be visible.

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this PNG vs. JPG discussion belong in the Imagery Issues forum? I glance through that forum, but as someone who's more interested in the geology and meteorology on Mars than in the technical details of how to play with the pictures, I guess I'd like to be able to glance through the imagery issue discussions separately....

-the other Doug

Hi Doug,

Agree, If there is a new imagery issue, I will write one reply and therein the (new thread) link to our imagery issue forum

Someone start a thread and I'll move the appropriate posts

Thanks, guys -- I didn't mean to come off as Board Monitor or anything. I just wanted to see some discussion about the nature of Jibsheet, since it's a rather unusual-looking rock that would seem to be shedding clasts or inclusions onto the ground. I guess I'm a little surprised that none of our other amateur and professional geologists have any opinions about it...

-the other Doug

Was "tautologous" therefore original text deleted.

Hey Doug (Ellison) it seems you aren't able to delete posts - or rather the forum software isn't it

All right Doug, the new thread is already alive

Now Doug (the other) you can start with copy and delete!