If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
I was following the discussion and started doing some searching.
I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I was following the discussion and started doing some searching. I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
"David J Taylor" wrote in message ... Paul D. Sullivan wrote: I was following the discussion and started doing some searching. I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ David Irfanview (FREE) also supports "lossless" jpg rotations. mikey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Today, David J Taylor made these interesting comments ...
Paul D. Sullivan wrote: I was following the discussion and started doing some searching. I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ David adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to even see -- HP, aka Jerry |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I was following the discussion and started doing some searching. I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ David adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to even see I was impressed by their language on their site in way of explanation. They say they optimize it so only the actual pixels that have changed are re-saved. It does not process any other blocks of pixels. Sounds quite smart. I think I'm going to try that program out more in-depth. Red Eye Reduction with almost no hit in quality sounds quite good indeed. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Today, Paul D. Sullivan made these interesting comments ...
Paul D. Sullivan wrote: I was following the discussion and started doing some searching. I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression. http://www.betterjpeg.com/ Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real. If you have any experience on this app, please share some feedback if you would. Thanks With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ David adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to even see I was impressed by their language on their site in way of explanation. They say they optimize it so only the actual pixels that have changed are re-saved. It does not process any other blocks of pixels. Sounds quite smart. I think I'm going to try that program out more in-depth. Red Eye Reduction with almost no hit in quality sounds quite good indeed. Can't comment on a specific program which may have been written to minimize image damage under certain well-defined situations as I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in general terms using my knowledge - or lack thereof - of who the JPEG spec was designed and how it is implemented in software. For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I will go back to the original unedited camera image which I always save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of Diminishing Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I do re-edit my own or others images. However, I carefully examine the image to see what damage is already there - it may be slight or considerable - and usually go to a lower compression rate and/or alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve best possible results. Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies, posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply mild-to- agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But, one thing I ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save or a multiple edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open the just saved (or re-saved) image an relook for damage. Sometime I see considerable damage even on a 1st time save, for which I alter my technique as described above. Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can afford compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable. Thus, unless I am specifically saving proprietary items such as layers vector data, I usually don't save to a non-compressed format. Just one man's opinion, YMMV ... -- HP, aka Jerry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Good points you make. What with data storage being so cheap
compared to the old days, I can get 7 meg JPG into 14 meg PSP and store 'em in that native Paint Shop Pro format without much trouble. Can't comment on a specific program which may have been written to minimize image damage under certain well-defined situations as I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in general terms using my knowledge - or lack thereof - of who the JPEG spec was designed and how it is implemented in software. For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I will go back to the original unedited camera image which I always save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of Diminishing Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I do re-edit my own or others images. However, I carefully examine the image to see what damage is already there - it may be slight or considerable - and usually go to a lower compression rate and/or alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve best possible results. Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies, posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply mild-to- agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But, one thing I ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save or a multiple edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open the just saved (or re-saved) image an relook for damage. Sometime I see considerable damage even on a 1st time save, for which I alter my technique as described above. Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can afford compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable. Thus, unless I am specifically saving proprietary items such as layers vector data, I usually don't save to a non-compressed format. Just one man's opinion, YMMV ... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Today, Paul D. Sullivan made these interesting comments ...
Good points you make. What with data storage being so cheap compared to the old days, I can get 7 meg JPG into 14 meg PSP and store 'em in that native Paint Shop Pro format without much trouble. Since I seldome use vector data or extensive layering, PSPimage isn't that important to me, nor have the many advantages of RAW been enough to overcome the steep learning curve. For your example of a 7 MB JPEG into an 8MB PSP, that seems extreme. What pixel size was used in this comparo? When I do that, the ratio is more like 10:1 in favor JPEG. Can't comment on a specific program which may have been written to minimize image damage under certain well-defined situations as I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in general terms using my knowledge - or lack thereof - of who the JPEG spec was designed and how it is implemented in software. For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I will go back to the original unedited camera image which I always save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of Diminishing Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I do re-edit my own or others images. However, I carefully examine the image to see what damage is already there - it may be slight or considerable - and usually go to a lower compression rate and/or alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve best possible results. Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies, posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply mild-to- agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But, one thing I ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save or a multiple edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open the just saved (or re-saved) image an relook for damage. Sometime I see considerable damage even on a 1st time save, for which I alter my technique as described above. Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can afford compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable. Thus, unless I am specifically saving proprietary items such as layers vector data, I usually don't save to a non-compressed format. Just one man's opinion, YMMV ... -- HP, aka Jerry |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
HEMI-Powered wrote:
[] adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to even see In programs such as JPEGcrop, although the image is presented to the viewer in an uncompressed form for examination and selection of the cropping region (i.e. as 24-bit RGB), internally the 8 x 8, or 16 x 16 blocks comprising the original JPEG are retained, and the rotation or crop are made on these blocks, and /not/ on the RGB data. So, for example, crop simply consists of writing out only the blocks you need, and altering the file headers to reflect the new number of pixels. The content of the blocks - the compressed JPEG data - is not altered, so no new compression loss is incurred because there is no recompression. Lossless rotation (only at 90 degree angles) is achieved by similar mathematical operations on the data in the blocks, but again without any decompression and re-compression. It's a neat idea which works very well. David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation
Since I seldome use vector data or extensive layering, PSPimage
isn't that important to me, nor have the many advantages of RAW been enough to overcome the steep learning curve. I use tons of layers, so it's a very convenient format for me. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
jpeg and jpeg 2000 | Conrad | Digital Photography | 71 | February 3rd 07 11:04 PM |
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? | Amit | Digital Photography | 1 | March 16th 06 06:50 PM |
RAW vs. RAW + JPEG | Brian | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 19th 06 02:13 AM |
RAW vs. RAW + JPEG | Floyd Davidson | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 18th 06 05:08 AM |
RAW vs JPEG | Robert R Kircher, Jr. | Digital Photography | 36 | December 23rd 04 07:41 AM |