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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
Fed-Up-With-Corel added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ... Correct. If you do a global change then yes, the whole image would have to be ran through the JPEG routine again. The upside is that when using "Save" (not "Save-As") the same compression level that was used on the original will still be applied to the result without you having to guess or do a thing. Isn't using Save vs. Save As inherently dangerous? If anything at all goes bump in the night during the (re)Save, your original is lost forever. I would imagine that it would be a damn good idea to copy your file(s) to a temp folder just in case. Correct, but I'm not talking about over-writing any original file intentionally. I'm talking about not degrading any unedited data in my final COPY-OF result, no matter where I save it or what filename I give it. Note too that the only warning about using "Save-As" with PL32 is that if you choose a compression setting that gives you a smaller file-size than the original, only THEN will it globally recompress the unedited data in your original image. So even "Save-As" has the lossless editing capability, as long as you don't manually choose a higher compression level than the original image. This ensures you can also save a lossless copy under new filenames at any time. Just don't fiddle with the compression level slider trying to get a smaller file. Thanks for the explanation, but, sorry, I still don't understand. I thought the idea was to be able to do a specified small re-edit and re-save the JPEG with minimal/zero damage. If you used Save instead of Save as, doesn't that imply you're overwriting the original that you wanted to change? I've not tried these programs and probably won't for reasons I've stated. I'm only "involved" here out of curiosity and the design to learn new things, but people must be experiencing FAR greater amounts of re-edit/re-save damage than I see in order to get them to accept specialized editors that have severe limitations. WRT to not changing the compression, AFAIK, in a normal re-save, even at the same compression setting, a totally new block sampling is done during the re-compresssion phase. So, again, I'm confused here. BTW: Simple crops are also immune to recompression data loss when re-saving as JPG in PL32. If you haven't changed the data in the cropped area before re-saving it, then there is zero data loss in your saved portion. It also isn't limited to 8-pixel boundaries as so many other editors are forced to use. That's the danger I was talking about, but instead of inadvertantly overwriting the old file, you'd be doing it intentionally. Seems naive on my part, maybe, but that seems like an invitation for a visit from Murphy. Again, you followed-up on a misunderstanding. I refer to the extremely rare times I might mistakenly over-write an original, and it has happened. With a wave of panic. It's nice to know I can recover from it. Not so with PSP. In order to retain the original data by backing up in "undo"s you would have to re-save the unedited version as a JPG with a compression value of 1, and a chroma subsampling of 1x1x1. Resulting in a huge file compared to the original which was already compressed. Choosing any compression more than that would introduce new JPG artifacts and loss of original data. Keeping in mind too that even at this lowest possible minimum compression setting as a JPG file in PSP it's *still* going to change some of your original image data. You may not ever be able to visually detect it, but it *will* change it. To be certain that you wouldn't change the data after backing out of your edits you'd have to save it in a lossless filetype (BMP, TIF, PNG, etc.). Your original JPG file and its native compression scheme now gone forever. I thought I'd understood you right, I was amplifying what I thought you were saying by noting that Save vs. Save As sounded to me like it was an intentional overwrite. Again, I thank you for the explanation but am still confused as to your logic and procedure. Don't spend a lot of time trying to enlighten me, it isn't worth your time unless you think others reading this thread will benefit. In my normal processing, before I'm finished with a picture, I will do a Save, not Save As, periodically and especially before I do something really drastic in case the Undo function fails or, in PSP 9's case, something higher up in the History Pallette fails and all is lost. But, if I'm about to do some serious experimentation to go in a couple of directions to see what works best on a complicated edit, I'll do a Save As to a different file name for safety. If you're a PSP user, you'll understand why my real standard "save" function is the JPEG Optimizer because it gives me not only easy access to Chroma subsampling, but a real- time finished file size in full bytes, not KB, which I find indespensible in judging how much to compress a given image, based on long past experience. I too save under a new filename after every major or small sequence of minor changes. It's not uncommon to have some of my images in a folder named: img_5283.jpg (which is a copy of original), img_5283_B.jpg, img_5283_C,jpg, .... up to half the alphabet away. If I find I want to diverge from a previous editing stage then I go back to that letter and start tacking on numbers after the letter. img_5283_C_02.jpg, etc. Some of my most prized images have 5 or more different edit-endings, and I still can't decide which I like best. They're all good. (It's hard to ruin a good image that was taken right in the first place. They look right no matter what you do to them sometimes.) Of course, I either delete all the intermediate versions of I park them in an "old & alternate version" subfolder. The option to select the subsampling sizes is a nice feature in PSP, and at times I wish I had that in PL32 after having left PSP. But I have found that the subsampling rates that PL32 selects automatically depending on the percentage of compression I choose to be better than anything that I could manually select in PSP. Keeping in mind too that not all of those subsampling choices in PSP are compatible with other editors and viewers. Choosing the wrong subsampling options in PSP can make your image "corrupt" if you share it or use it in other applications. PSP will still read it but all others may not. I've never encountered a corrupt JPEG based on Chroma subsampling choices alone, but then, I've not gone to the 4x4 extreme options because even casual checking convinced me that it made mincemeat out of my car pictures. Of all 12 choices in PSP 9, I think I only use 3, again, based on visual evaluation, not anything scientific and certainly not specialized utility software designed to analyze an image for damage. If you ever check what PL32 can do, be certain to try the "Web Export" tool dialog. (Under Web Web Export ...) It's like an all-in-one JPG & GIF optimizer panel. I put a button for it right next to my "Save" button on the toolbar. Not only can you zoom in on the image to pixel level to see how your compression choices are affecting the image quality (as in PSP), but you can compare 2 different file-types and compression schemes to the original right next to each other (3 view panels). Being able to even save your most often used compression choices as well as color-bit depths, reduction methods, palette type, and transparency methods (for GIF and PNG types). As I mentioned I got to see the beta of the new PL32 v13.90. The author is also now including options to save or strip out EXIF, IPTC, and XMP data in the Web Export tool. You can compare JPG, GIF, PNG, JPG2000, and HDPhoto compression schemes against one another visually, as well as seeing the resulting file-size in exact bytes. This sure beats PSP's individual GIF, PNG, & JPG optimizers. I don't miss them in the least. Thanks. I'm parking all these replies where I can find them again if I decide to investigate either of the programs being debated here. Please realize that I'm hardly refuting anything you or anyone is saying, I'm just asking questions and commenting on what I've personally seen and done. All this stuff that has been transpiring in this thread is fascinating to me, even if I never acquire any of the software. You should just go download the demo of PL32 and play with it. It's a surprisingly small download (~8megs) for all that it can do. The demo is completely functional, just a small nag screen at start-up. I even keep copies of it installed on my memory-cards for my cameras. I can run it right through the USB port on a card-reader or right from any camera's USB port if it allows me see the card's folders as an external device. It takes up so little space too, the same as a few images on the card. I carry my complete better-than-photoshop editor with me right in my camera . When out traveling I only need to borrow any public-access computer or friend's laptop to do all my final edits out in the field and then save my final images right back to new folders on my memory-cards. A digital camera with PL32 on the memory-card gives me a complete photography studio, from photo to finish, all in the palm of my hand. I doesn't get better than that. I like your handle. I am more than "fed up with Corel". They have destroyed a program I have been using since it's shareware days when author Bob Voit was a fulltime airline pilot and part time software developer. Corel's marketing strategy is to acquire software from successful developers and redesign it's GUI to look new so as to catch the upgrade business and attract new customers that a new version is available. But, obviously you are of the same opinion as I am that new is not always better, and in the case of PSP X and PSPP XI, not only is it not better, but Corel has shown itself to be a callously deficient tester and regularly releases versions and patches that are extremely buggy and compound old bugs with new ones. Having said that, again, I appreciate all your comments and advice, but for now, I just don't have the time and energy to learn a new app. I am so far behind that I am still plodding my way through LAST year's car show and museum pictures. I imaging I will break away from PSP when I get my next PC built, with will be a quad-core AMD processor when speeds and reliability get high enough and the price gets low enough, and Vista to take advantage of much larger memory spaces and the multiple processors, but AFTER Vista is ready for prime time, which I would expect based on past MS experience won't be until it's first SP in at least a year. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
In rec.photo.digital HEMI-Powered wrote:
BTW, you've said 8x8 a couple of times. Excuse my ignorance again, but I thought that the JPEG spec allowed both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks to be considered when deciding which pixels to throw away. Or, am I mixing this up with something else? If I am right, I have no idea if an image could have both block sizes in the same file or not. It is true that the JPEG standard says both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks are allowed, but in practice, they always seem 8x8. I have never seen lossless-rotate truncate to 16-bit boundaries. Nor have I ever seen 16x16 artifacting. If anybody has examples, please post them! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
Bill Tuthill added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ... In rec.photo.digital HEMI-Powered wrote: BTW, you've said 8x8 a couple of times. Excuse my ignorance again, but I thought that the JPEG spec allowed both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks to be considered when deciding which pixels to throw away. Or, am I mixing this up with something else? If I am right, I have no idea if an image could have both block sizes in the same file or not. It is true that the JPEG standard says both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks are allowed, but in practice, they always seem 8x8. I have never seen lossless-rotate truncate to 16-bit boundaries. Nor have I ever seen 16x16 artifacting. If anybody has examples, please post them! Bill, I don't want to hit this at all hard, but I could swear that during the beta test for PSP 8, Jasc's Chief Scientist, the same guy, Kris Zaklika, that wrote the math for DCNR, said that PSP 8 could decide in a "smart" way which block size to use. I could be entirely all wet. Ditto for PSP 9. I really don't know. I do know this, though, I honestly don't care about the theoretical math. As I commented on earlier, I am a consumate pragmatist, and I make my image judgements visually, not through software inspection tools. So, whatever magic the software is doing to implement the math is fine by me - so long as I can figure out optimum ways to use it. Thanks for your comments and observations. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
On Jul 25, 3:25 am, Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital HEMI-Powered wrote: All good apps can do lossless rotation, in 90 degree increments. If Irfanview can do an arbitrary rotation losslessly, I'm not aware of it, Bill. Which did you mean? Yes, Irfanview does 90/180/270 degrees, or vertical/horizontal flip. Just like PSP, apparently. (I have PSP 9 but don't use it much.) It's not really lossless, because most images are not evenly divisible by 8 in both directions, so "lossless" rotation usually trims off some pixels rows or columns on the bottom or right side. A good implementation of true lossless rotation refuses point blank to do it if the requirements for preserving all the original information are not met. For a crop it is that the top left corner must start on a block boundary. Unless you are eagle eyed and have fine detail crossing the edge at an oblique angle you are unlikely to spot this happening casually - a lossless crop need not be a multiple of 8 in dimension as the bottom right corner is unrestricted. The problem is due to a weakness in the original JPEG spec which never envisaged that programs would crop or rotate images in raw coefficient space. It could be almost trivially fixed by adding a top and left crop offset TAG (2 bytes) to the existing spec and increasing the size of the image to the next higher multiple of 8/16. Applications that understand the new tag would display the image with original dimensions and rotated, whereas old applications would see a slightly larger rotated image with spurious borders displayed top and/ or left. The problem is one of inertia and getting any changes adopted by the standards committee. Given the number of digital cameras about these days I would hazard a guess that most original source JPEG images are multiples of 8 in both dimensions (and that a substantial number are now multiples of 256). Digicams situation is slightly complicated by the default 2x1 chroma subsampling. This means that although lossless rotation is exact and truly lossless some applications will display a slightly different image from the rotated coefficients. So for example: JPEG BMP Rot90 JPEG Rot90 BMP Will yield slighlty different results in some applications. Adobe which uses pixel replication for chroma reconstruction gets the same both ways, some other common codecs do not. Try it and see. Regards, Martin Brown |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
On Jul 26, 3:13 am, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
Bill Tuthill added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... In rec.photo.digital HEMI-Powered wrote: BTW, you've said 8x8 a couple of times. Excuse my ignorance again, but I thought that the JPEG spec allowed both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks to be considered when deciding which pixels to throw away. Or, am I mixing this up with something else? If I am right, I have no idea if an image could have both block sizes in the same file or not. It is true that the JPEG standard says both 8x8 and 16x16 blocks are allowed, but in practice, they always seem 8x8. I have never seen lossless-rotate truncate to 16-bit boundaries. Nor have I ever seen 16x16 artifacting. If anybody has examples, please post them! Bill, I don't want to hit this at all hard, but I could swear that during the beta test for PSP 8, Jasc's Chief Scientist, the same guy, Kris Zaklika, that wrote the math for DCNR, said that PSP 8 could decide in a "smart" way which block size to use. I could be Either way that statement is incredibily funny. PSP 8 has a demonstrably very broken chroma subsampling implementation in its JPEG codec. It is a testament to just how robust JPEG is that more people have not noticed this flaw. The simplest line art test to show its failings on chroma encoding is to encode a pure red and pure blue 16x16 pokerdot test pattern in each of the possible phases save as JPEG default 2x2 subsampled at maximum quality and then reload it. Half of the newly decoded image not even a vaguely satisfactory approximation to the original (with gross residual colour errors - completely the wrong colour bright red instead of purple). 2x1 subsampling gets an even more incorrect result with alternating blue and red stripes in addition. Correct JPEG encoders get something that decodes to look like the original unless you zoom in to pixel detail. BRBRBR.. RRRRRR.. etc And the others based on replicating the other 4 pixel motifs RB,RR; RR,BR; RR,RB The original is online at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_1x1.jpg A correct IJG JPEG encodign at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg And the mess that PSP 8 makes of it at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x1.jpg http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg I would be curious to know if this defect was fixed in later versions. Regards, Martin Brown |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
Martin Brown added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ... It's not really lossless, because most images are not evenly divisible by 8 in both directions, so "lossless" rotation usually trims off some pixels rows or columns on the bottom or right side. A good implementation of true lossless rotation refuses point blank to do it if the requirements for preserving all the original information are not met. For a crop it is that the top left corner must start on a block boundary. Unless you are eagle eyed and have fine detail crossing the edge at an oblique angle you are unlikely to spot this happening casually - a lossless crop need not be a multiple of 8 in dimension as the bottom right corner is unrestricted. The problem is due to a weakness in the original JPEG spec which never envisaged that programs would crop or rotate images in raw coefficient space. It could be almost trivially fixed by adding a top and left crop offset TAG (2 bytes) to the existing spec and increasing the size of the image to the next higher multiple of 8/16. How big of a problem is lossy compression vs. lossles-but-with- severe limitations, anyway? Sure, I've mangled a few by over re- editing my JPEGs when I had no choice, and I've damaged a few visibly but not catasttrophically, but by doing the re-save judiciously and by using careful softening of the aliasing and artifacts that may result, I've always been able to get by. I don't think I have low standards of quality, but then, I am also not a purist, theotician, nor extremist. I am a consumate pragmatist and if an image meets my reasonable definition of "acceptable", I don't worry about it. Which goes to why I've never investigated more sophisticated solutions. But, I AM interested in this thread because I DO want to learn. New knowledge is always being created and to ignore it is to be both stupid and ignorant. Applications that understand the new tag would display the image with original dimensions and rotated, whereas old applications would see a slightly larger rotated image with spurious borders displayed top and/ or left. The problem is one of inertia and getting any changes adopted by the standards committee. Given the number of digital cameras about these days I would hazard a guess that most original source JPEG images are multiples of 8 in both dimensions (and that a substantial number are now multiples of 256). Since my first digital in early 2001, I have immedidately tested the two or more "quality" or "compression" options available and always come the conclusion that "standard" or "normal" produces visible artifacts in a high enough percenteage, maybe 5%, maybe 10%+, I always select "fine", "quality", whichever is the least compression since I do not use RAW so of necessity I will be doing at least one edit and one re-save. That philsophy has been quite successful for me in my type of photography and for my standards of quality and excellence. Digicams situation is slightly complicated by the default 2x1 chroma subsampling. This means that although lossless rotation is exact and truly lossless some applications will display a slightly different image from the rotated coefficients. So for example: I have no clue what my Canon Rebel XT uses, but is seems unlikely that it is 2x1 as I have found that to be a fairly damaging setting. I don't know, but would think they use either 1x1 (none) or no more than 1x2. JPEG BMP Rot90 JPEG Rot90 BMP Will yield slighlty different results in some applications. Adobe which uses pixel replication for chroma reconstruction gets the same both ways, some other common codecs do not. Try it and see. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
Martin Brown added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ... Bill, I don't want to hit this at all hard, but I could swear that during the beta test for PSP 8, Jasc's Chief Scientist, the same guy, Kris Zaklika, that wrote the math for DCNR, said that PSP 8 could decide in a "smart" way which block size to use. I could be Either way that statement is incredibily funny. Why is that "incredibly funny", Martin? I get the feeling that you are calling me a fool. PSP 8 has a demonstrably very broken chroma subsampling implementation in its JPEG codec. It is a testament to just how robust JPEG is that more people have not noticed this flaw. Come again? I do not know either the math or the implementation but NEVER had any major problems with PSP 8 during the years from its release until PSP 9 was released, which I was not given the opportunity to be a public beta tester for. The simplest line art test to show its failings on chroma encoding is to encode a pure red and pure blue 16x16 pokerdot test pattern in each of the possible phases save as JPEG default 2x2 subsampled at maximum quality and then reload it. Half of the newly decoded image not even a vaguely satisfactory approximation to the original (with gross residual colour errors - completely the wrong colour bright red instead of purple). 2x1 subsampling gets an even more incorrect result with alternating blue and red stripes in addition. I don't do line art, don't do vectors, don't do text, don't do layers, I ONLY do raster graphics bitmap photo/scan editing. So, pathological examples such as ANY JPEG implementation mangling line art or text does not surprise me, as that is hardly what it's authors had in mind. I keep in mind that the "P" in JPEG means "Photographer". So, I will hardly dispute your conclusions but do not see how that is relevant to JPEG's real purpose and usage, other than line art people also want mimimal size images as well. But, I would think that to maintain maximum quality, you would want to use a lossless format or even save only to your favorite editors proprietary format, e.g., pspsimage. For my car pictures, 2x2 subsampling turns them into one big artifact, I never touch the stuff, so never suffer from its limitions or damage. Correct JPEG encoders get something that decodes to look like the original unless you zoom in to pixel detail. BRBRBR.. RRRRRR.. etc And the others based on replicating the other 4 pixel motifs RB,RR; RR,BR; RR,RB The original is online at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_1x1.jpg A correct IJG JPEG encodign at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg And the mess that PSP 8 makes of it at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x1.jpg http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg I would be curious to know if this defect was fixed in later versions. For my usage, I didn't that PSP 8 was broken and would still be using it today except that I deperately wanted DCNR in 9. I see no visible difference from 8 to 9, or only barely visible differnces, if I use identical JPEG 1-100 compresion and the exact same Chroma subsampling. But, again, that is my experience and YMMV. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
... How big of a problem is lossy compression vs. lossles-but-with- severe limitations, anyway? Sure, I've mangled a few by over re- editing my JPEGs when I had no choice, and I've damaged a few visibly but not catasttrophically, but by doing the re-save judiciously and by using careful softening of the aliasing and artifacts that may result, I've always been able to get by. I don't think I have low standards of quality, but then, I am also not a purist, theotician, nor extremist. I am a consumate pragmatist and if an image meets my reasonable definition of "acceptable", I don't worry about it. Which goes to why I've never investigated more sophisticated solutions. But, I AM interested in this thread because I DO want to learn. New knowledge is always being created and to ignore it is to be both stupid and ignorant. The best way to handle a lot of photo editing is to convert the original Jpeg image from the camera (if that is what you camera produces) to a lossless format such as TIFF. Tiff can be compressed using LZW compression, which is the same compression scheme as ZIP files. LZW does not compress as much as JPEG, but the compression is 100% no loss. After converting to TIFF, you can edit and save as many times as you wish, with no loss in picture quality. After you are done with editing, you can then save a final image as Jpeg. You should only do very limited edits on a JPEG file. Every time you save a JPEG you are re-compressing and losing information. There are claims of lossless JPEG, but not very many photo editors are supporting the lossless formats. And they are not common. Jpeg and Tiff image formats have been around for years and are not likely to go away. Here is a good list of image file formats and the best use. http://www.scantips.com/basics09.html Continue reading the following pages. A lot of good information in those pages -- CSM1 http://www.carlmcmillan.com -- |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
CSM1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
But, I AM interested in this thread because I DO want to learn. New knowledge is always being created and to ignore it is to be both stupid and ignorant. The best way to handle a lot of photo editing is to convert the original Jpeg image from the camera (if that is what you camera produces) to a lossless format such as TIFF. Tiff can be compressed using LZW compression, which is the same compression scheme as ZIP files. LZW does not compress as much as JPEG, but the compression is 100% no loss. As you probably know, my Rebel XT can do JPEG or RAW or both, but not TIFF. I understand your point, of course, but about Ivory Soap Pure percent of the time, I can get there with just one save. When I cannot, I will save the file as a pspimage file so as to preserve layers and Alpha channel stuff. I do some of the former but a LOT of the latter to store various kinds of selections so I do not have to always do global edits when working on color, brightness/contrast, noise, etc. After converting to TIFF, you can edit and save as many times as you wish, with no loss in picture quality. After you are done with editing, you can then save a final image as Jpeg. You should only do very limited edits on a JPEG file. Every time you save a JPEG you are re-compressing and losing information. I know you're replying to the whole NG, but this doesn't happen to me, although I do understand the non-linear degradation that begins at about the 2nd re-edit/re-save cycle. There are claims of lossless JPEG, but not very many photo editors are supporting the lossless formats. And they are not common. Lossless is supported by so few apps and not at all on the web and Usenet that it is useless. As you suggest, TIFF is better but has the disadvantage that EXIF cannot be saved if you do LZW compression, which makes them pretty large. So, again, when I need to, I use pspimage because it saves EVERYTHING I am doing, same as PhotoShop proprietary files do and any other good app can do. Jpeg and Tiff image formats have been around for years and are not likely to go away. As I understand it, JPEG began with a committee or consortia of about half mathemticians and half real photographers to develop a new format that could vastly reduce file size beyond the approx. 50% of an LZW TIFF. I haven't read the spec in a long time, but I vaguely remember that the definition for JPEG=1 out of a possible 100 was to approximate LZW TIFF. And, since photographers are only interested in continous tone (to the extent that is true for 24-bit color) photos, and they were NOT interested in line art or raster text, both of which take an awful beating by JPEG unless you are extremely conservative in your settings. At least, that has been my experience and what I have heard/seen others say is true. Here is a good list of image file formats and the best use. http://www.scantips.com/basics09.html Continue reading the following pages. A lot of good information in those pages Thanks muchly! -- HP, aka Jerry |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
What program is best at JPEG compression?
In rec.photo.digital Martin Brown wrote:
PSP 8 has a demonstrably very broken chroma subsampling implementation in its JPEG codec. It is a testament to just how robust JPEG is that more people have not noticed this flaw. Thanks for your excellent explanation of the issue. The simplest line art test to show its failings on chroma encoding is to encode a pure red and pure blue 16x16 pokerdot test pattern in each of the possible phases save as JPEG default 2x2 subsampled at maximum quality and then reload it. Half of the newly decoded image not even a vaguely satisfactory approximation to the original (with gross residual colour errors - completely the wrong colour bright red instead of purple). 2x1 subsampling gets an even more incorrect result with alternating blue and red stripes in addition. Is 2x1 same as 4:2:2? I thought the ImageMagick -sampling_factor option only accepted 1x1 and 2x2, but it does accept 2x1 and produces what looks (to jpegdump) similar to 4:2:2 chroma subsampling from digital cameras. The original is online at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_1x1.jpg Correct IJG JPEG encoding http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg I think you got that filename wrong. And the mess that PSP 8 makes of it at http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x1.jpg http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/jpeg/rb_2x2.jpg I would be curious to know if this defect was fixed in later versions. It appears to be mostly fixed. I'm not certain that the colors are as accurate as with the equivalent IJG encodings, but they certainly don't display the wild inaccuracy of the above encodings. I put them online for you to see: http://cacreeks.com/psp/ (filenames hopefully self-explanatory) What's the difference between PSP's 2x1 1x1 1x1 and PSP's 1x2 1x1 1x1 encoding? I used the former, not the latter. PSP also has a bunch of weird encodings not encountered in other software. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation | Paul D. Sullivan | Digital Photography | 14 | January 30th 07 07:34 PM |
best compression for saving photos in jpeg? | Brian | Digital Photography | 14 | December 24th 04 12:59 PM |
JPEG compression | James Ramaley | Digital Photography | 14 | October 26th 04 01:41 AM |
Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression | Ron Baird | Digital Photography | 9 | August 24th 04 03:19 PM |
JPEG compression options -- can anybody explain? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 3 | August 4th 04 02:17 AM |