LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Jpeg test update

FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge
Thread started 16 Mar 2004 (Tuesday) 19:22   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
JZaun
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2004
2,488 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

CoolToolguy asked for a different pic. I chose a colored object with detail. I cannot see any degridation of color of detail after 80 save cycles. Since I would never modify and re-save a image any near 80 times I do not see jpeg re-compression issue being a negative factor im my decision to use raw or jpeg. I do think from other reading, that I should save a raw or tiff image if I think I am going to be changing it over and over!! or if I know in time to change the camera that it is a critical shot. With my skill level in PSE2 that is not going to happen any time soon. Here are 2 more pics, the orriginal and the 80th save.

original

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Copy 80
IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



This is part of my ongoing process to decide if I am going to shoot raw or Jpeg..Just FYI, for many reasons, jpeg is ahead but hasn't won as of yet. more reasons why later.

ONE interesting note!!! somewhere between the first copy and copy 20 the image grew in size and the image streatched length wise!

JZaun

JZaun

Post #1, Mar 16, 2004 19:22:47




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Jerry, you must be doing something wrong. Or maybe I am.

I saved your original duck, and created an action
File... Open... 51duck-1-web.jpg
File... Save As...JPG set at quality 12 (the highest)
File... Close

I assigned F2 to the action to make it easy. After 80 runs of the action I got this:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/51duck-1-web2.jpg

I saw degradation in the ocean after 5 runs, quite clearly. The duck itself is still not too bad, considering the brutality of the test.

Post #2, Mar 16, 2004 19:36:41


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
JZaun
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2004
2,488 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

It appears that you are saving as web.. I was saving as xxx to hard drive. Something about resaving web size?? I don't know. I would never resave a web pic anyway only one from my file..???????????????


JZaun

Post #3, Mar 16, 2004 19:42:01




LOG IN TO REPLY
evilenglishman
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2003
1,184 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

as with the previous example of the screw, the file size of your second image is almost double the size of the original

Post #4, Mar 16, 2004 19:42:16


Click here to view and/or sign the petitionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

This time I "Saved As" Jpg, not Save for Web. Check my Action.

The file size increase is expected. It will happen every time. JPG is a lossy format, and some data will be lost as it changes colors to make it easier to compress. Thus the algorithm runs different every time, and edges are made sharper each time, as can be seen in the ocean in my pic. Since this is a greater variation between pixels the algorithm won't be as efficient, and thus it ends up as a larger file. Every time.

Jerry, where you by chance opening "51duck.jpg" and Saving As "51duck2.jpg" every time? I opened "51duck.jpg" and saved over it as "51duck.jpg" overwriting the original. So I was opening the file I just compressed, and compressing it again.

Post #5, Mar 16, 2004 19:47:58


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
JZaun
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2004
2,488 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I opened duck and saved as "duck1 " the opened and saved as duck 1 over duck 1. overwriting itself. I was dealing with the original pic. You are dealing with the web pic.

JZaun

Post #6, Mar 16, 2004 19:52:02




LOG IN TO REPLY
nomel
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2003
200 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

PNG anyone?

Why doesn't anyone ever use png? It's lossless, and works great. Support 32 bit color and everything.

Post #7, Mar 16, 2004 20:06:03




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

A PM from Jerry:

My pic was resized for the web after being saved 80 times! Thats the difference.. You are resaving the web pic. It is already degridated by being downsized for the web.!

Good point. Yes, I was taking your resized image.

Hold on...

100% Crop from orignal TIFF, Saved as JPG quality 12, ONCE

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gooseheadjpgtest100_original.jpg

100% Crop from orignal TIFF, Saved as JPG quality 12, 25 TIMES
IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gooseheadjpgtest100_25times.jpg

Still a big difference.

Now, I resized both for the web, from 500x500 to 200x200
IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gooseheadjpgtest100_originalresized.jpg
IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gooseheadjpgtest100_25timesresized.jpg

Who can tell? There IS degradation in the resized ones, but the resize algorithm hides it pretty well.

So if all you're going to do is view on the web, then JPG all the time. But if you ever print that original-been-JPGed-20-times image, you'll see a difference.

Post #8, Mar 16, 2004 20:07:26


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
Conk
Goldmember
Conk's Avatar
Joined Jul 2002
3,368 posts
Cloverdale B.C.
[MORE/SHARE]

I'm going to just jump in here and ask,
when you are resaving the photo are you replacing the file or making a new one? You can resave the same file a million times but if you keep saving the file into a new name it will make a copy. Then I'm sure you'll start to see the image degrade.

Post #9, Mar 16, 2004 20:07:34


Cloverdale Photographyexternal link
Photosexternal link
More Photosexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Conk
Goldmember
Conk's Avatar
Joined Jul 2002
3,368 posts
Cloverdale B.C.
[MORE/SHARE]

nomel wrote:
Why doesn't anyone ever use png? It's lossless, and works great. Support 32 bit color and everything.

File size?

Post #10, Mar 16, 2004 20:09:16


Cloverdale Photographyexternal link
Photosexternal link
More Photosexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Conk wrote:
nomel wrote:
Why doesn't anyone ever use png? It's lossless, and works great. Support 32 bit color and everything.

File size?

Ha. Space is cheap. It's time

Same 8-bit image saved as JPG and PNG.
JPG: 2 seconds, 2.4 Meg
PNG: 43 seconds, 5.4 meg

Ouch!

Post #11, Mar 16, 2004 20:16:32


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
evilenglishman
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2003
1,184 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Generally people don't use png because of its larger file size.
Most consider png to be an alternative to gif because of its support for transparency.
However the problem is that the most popular browsers don't have built in support for png transparency, they support png - just not the transparency part.
Hence the reason no one uses it (yet).

Post #12, Mar 17, 2004 06:36:24


Click here to view and/or sign the petitionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
slejhamer
Goldmember
slejhamer's Avatar
Joined Jun 2002
1,758 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

My results are similar to Scottes':

http://www.photography​-on-the.net ...ad.php?t=27611&high​light=

Post #13, Mar 17, 2004 08:12:54


Mitch

LOG IN TO REPLY
JZaun
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2004
2,488 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

slejhamer


Your test is run the same way scottes was on his first test. Your original file was only 504X403 and the crop was 432X 355. I ran the test with a full size jpeg file and croped after the last save. I didn't find your file size but scottes second test was more like mine. I can blow any pic out of the water with a crop. Try it using a full size file. I think your results will be more like mine and scottes second test..

JZaun

Post #14, Mar 17, 2004 08:39:45




LOG IN TO REPLY
slejhamer
Goldmember
slejhamer's Avatar
Joined Jun 2002
1,758 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

JZaun wrote:
slejhamer

Your test is run the same way scottes was on his first test. Your original file was only 504X403 and the crop was 432X 355. I ran the test with a full size jpeg file and croped after the last save. I didn't find your file size but scottes second test was more like mine. I can blow any pic out of the water with a crop. Try it using a full size file. I think your results will be more like mine and scottes second test..

JZaun

Hi Jerry. You are mistaken, but I should have been more clear in my post. The test was done using a full-size duplicate of the original 6mp image file. Only after the repeated saves did I crop at 100% and resize for the web, so the size of the web posts has no bearing. I can send you the full-size files if you wish (I saved full-size copies of #21 and #81), and you would see exactly the same thing as I have posted, just much bigger!

Besides, Scottes' second test after 25 saves looks much more like mine at 21 saves than it does yours. As he said, there is "still a big difference." :wink:

Still, this is something of an academic exercise and your point about JPEG quality is valid. For practical purposes, there is nothing wrong with shooting a JPEG, editing, and then saving it again. I prefer RAW for other reasons (ease of WB and exposure correction) but I save my final image in JPEG format and delete the TIFFs I use for editing. Much of the criticism of JPEG is overstated. 8)

Cheers!

P.S. You don't have the "save as a copy" box checked when the "save as" dialog opens, do you?

Post #15, Mar 17, 2004 09:11:01


Mitch

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,695 views & 0 likes for this thread
Jpeg test update
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00201 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
895 guests, 669 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Caramelos

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.