A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

best compression for saving photos in jpeg?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 04, 01:51 PM
Brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default best compression for saving photos in jpeg?

What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?

Regards Brian


  #2  
Old December 22nd 04, 02:03 PM
imbsysop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:51:56 +1300, Brian wrote:

What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?


0% .. :-) jpg being a "lossy" compression every compression factor
applied will degrade picture quality ... so you will have to balance
between picture size and stored/needed/expected quality ..
(Paintshop pro 9 has a nice (save_as/optimizer) feature that will show
you picture deterioration versus compression factor applied ... )
FWIW

  #3  
Old December 22nd 04, 02:12 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian wrote:
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?


You need to determine this for yourself - what is acceptable to one person
may not be to another. Printing is likely to require a higher quality of
image than display on the computer screen (as the screen is limited to
about 1MP and your scan is likely to be more than that). You also need to
be sure that you are scanning to a sufficient number of pixels per inch.

David


  #4  
Old December 22nd 04, 02:17 PM
dylan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I tend to use:

For best quality printing or editting later 1 to 5% (assuming you need to
save space and do not want to use TIFF etc)
For viewing on PC or 'general' printing 10%
For internet 15 to 25 %

"Brian" wrote in message
...
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?

Regards Brian




  #5  
Old December 22nd 04, 03:03 PM
Bruce Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian writes:

What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?


It sounds like the compression factor in the program you're using is
reversed from the -quality switch in the cjpeg program I use, so switch 0%
and 100% in the information below, from cjpeg's manual page.

I personally find quality 75 to work well even with photos that have
lots of high-contrast transitions.

The -quality switch lets you trade off compressed file size against
quality of the reconstructed image: the higher the quality setting, the
larger the JPEG file, and the closer the output image will be to the
original input. Normally you want to use the lowest quality setting
(smallest file) that decompresses into something visually indistin-
guishable from the original image. For this purpose the quality set-
ting should be between 50 and 95; the default of 75 is often about
right. If you see defects at -quality 75, then go up 5 or 10 counts at
a time until you are happy with the output image. (The optimal setting
will vary from one image to another.)

-quality 100 will generate a quantization table of all 1's, minimizing
loss in the quantization step (but there is still information loss in
subsampling, as well as roundoff error). This setting is mainly of
interest for experimental purposes. Quality values above about 95 are
not recommended for normal use; the compressed file size goes up dra-
matically for hardly any gain in output image quality.

In the other direction, quality values below 50 will produce very small
files of low image quality. Settings around 5 to 10 might be useful in
preparing an index of a large image library, for example. Try -quality
2 (or so) for some amusing Cubist effects. (Note: quality values below
about 25 generate 2-byte quantization tables, which are considered
optional in the JPEG standard. cjpeg emits a warning message when you
give such a quality value, because some other JPEG programs may be
unable to decode the resulting file. Use -baseline if you need to
ensure compatibility at low quality values.)



--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.
  #6  
Old December 22nd 04, 04:21 PM
dylan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My figures are from PSP where 1 is highest quality and goes down to 100
which is highest compression.

"dylan" wrote in message
...
I tend to use:

For best quality printing or editting later 1 to 5% (assuming you need to
save space and do not want to use TIFF etc)
For viewing on PC or 'general' printing 10%
For internet 15 to 25 %

"Brian" wrote in message
...
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?

Regards Brian






  #7  
Old December 22nd 04, 04:37 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brian" wrote in message
...
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?

"Best" with respect to what?
"Best quality" = least amount of compression
"Best size" = most amount of compression.
Most people select a medium compression value, and that might be OK for you
provided that you do not edit the image very many times.
Jim


  #8  
Old December 23rd 04, 10:07 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian wrote:
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?
I was to be able to display the photo on the computer screen and also
be able to print the saved photo on a inkjet printer.

If I have very little compression then the saved photo file size is
too big in size. Is there a general rule I can use to decide the best
compression to use?

Regards Brian


Use the minimum compression that will give you the file size you need
for your purpose. The more you compress, the more data you lose.
Always save the original. Remember, HD space is something like $.50US a
gigabyte these days, so adding HD space is a pretty cheap alternative.


--
Ron Hunter
  #9  
Old December 23rd 04, 10:16 AM
Jürgen Eidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Hunter" schrieb
Brian wrote:
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?


Use the minimum compression that will give you the file size you need for
your purpose. The more you compress, the more data you lose. Always save
the original. Remember, HD space is something like $.50US a gigabyte
these days, so adding HD space is a pretty cheap alternative.


I can second that.
And 95% quality level really gives you the optimal value to start with.
A 100% doesn't scale to the gain you get for quality and everything less is
covered by the 50 cent/GB (nice value BTW )

--
Regards
Jürgen
http://cpicture.de/en


  #10  
Old December 23rd 04, 10:16 AM
Jürgen Eidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Hunter" schrieb
Brian wrote:
What is the best compression (1 - 100%) to use when saving a scanned
colour photo in jpeg?


Use the minimum compression that will give you the file size you need for
your purpose. The more you compress, the more data you lose. Always save
the original. Remember, HD space is something like $.50US a gigabyte
these days, so adding HD space is a pretty cheap alternative.


I can second that.
And 95% quality level really gives you the optimal value to start with.
A 100% doesn't scale to the gain you get for quality and everything less is
covered by the 50 cent/GB (nice value BTW )

--
Regards
Jürgen
http://cpicture.de/en


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression Ron Hunter Digital Photography 9 August 9th 04 12:04 PM
JPEG compression options -- can anybody explain? Beowulf Digital Photography 3 August 4th 04 02:17 AM
A short study on digicam's fixed jpeg compression ratio Heikki Siltala Digital Photography 23 July 28th 04 08:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.