>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I need to include in a report (purchase order) a picture of the manager's signature. What should work better in a VFP report for this purpose: BMP or JPG file?
>>>
>>>BMP is good only if you are selling disks and memory. Specially for a signature, which should have very few colors and should compress fine.
>>>
>>>JPG is the oldest good algorithm for compressing images; I think it's internally used in DVDs, each frame being a jpg - or at least it is used in several codecs. The trouble is that it's proprietary (by, imagine, JPEG group :) and the owners may want to slap a charge on software that uses it, some time in the future. I think CompuServe tried something like that with its .gif format, but don't know how far did it get. The PNG format is, AFAIK, a freebie, open source thing and any browser takes it; IMO, the best format for screenshots, which look right and are still small even with minimal compression. For photographs, scans with more than just text (i.e. texture, multiple colors), JPG serves still the best.
>>
>>Thank you, Dragan.
>
>I develop software for courier drivers handhelds - the signature is captured and we zip it and transmit it - I believe that bmp files produce a better image with jpg files the smaller size - take your pick

Actually, it's a matter of degree of compression with jpgs. I keep mine at about 85% quality (whatever that means :) and I can't see any visible difference between a compressed and noncompressed, and the ratio is about 2.5:1 for photographs with lots of detail, up to 8:1 for screenshots or rougher scans or photos with lots of uniform surfaces (sky, water). The effect around the edges of contrasting surfaces (i.e. text) is minimal to nearly absent at this percentage. Of course, you can drive the quality much lower (i.e. 10%) and achieve better compression. It's a tradeoff and I'm taking those 85% as my bargain price.