It probed at 96 pixels and got the answer wrong on exactly the file it was written for. Downscaling a
logo to 96 resamples its flat areas into gradients, so by the time the probe sees it, it already looks
like a photograph. Lossy wins that comparison, and the verdict is applied to every rung above — where
the flat areas are still flat and lossless would have won by a wide margin.
fofos-logo-saffron came out with a 13,074-byte 160-pixel rung and a 22,432-byte 256-pixel one, beside
a 9,144-byte 300-pixel original. Three files larger than the thing they were made from.
480 now, or the source's own width when it is smaller — which is the case that matters, because that
is what a logo is. Not the full size: a picture is still recognisably itself at 480, and probing a
4000x6000 photograph losslessly to learn something already obvious is minutes of encoding across a
library.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
pastilhasandClaude Opus 5
193f8cb03d