steven787 on 27 July 2008
Why is it that in both examples the first images is compressed more?
Example 1, pic 1:
756.17 KB (774322 bytes)
pic 2:
786.41 KB (805281 bytes)
Example2, pic 1:
742.55 KB (760369 bytes)
pic2:
1444.26 KB (1478918 bytes)
Also how do we know that they both had similar cables/screen capture sw/etc?
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
