That 50k compressed file is 50k of sets of affine transformations, also
probably compressed (lossless). They can do it automagically nowadays, but it
is very asymmetric. Which is okay really, they take a while squishing and we
take next to no time expanding. And you can zoom in to any level you wish.
The notion
of the pixel is irrelevant, but artifacts due to the chunks they build the
encoding
around show up at high magnification. The artifacts are kind of funky in
their own
way and no doubt we will start to see them used in design within the year.
>Sorry, this wouldn't work (IMHO). There are theoretical limits to how far
>you can push lossless compression (which is what you want for data, not
>images). An encyclopedia isn't fractal in nature (self similar at
>different scales), hence would not compress using this technique.
That's right kids. Don't use this on text. IMO you would only use it on
images that
have greater than screen resolution.
Then there is wavelet compression...
jimmy