Comparing different settings in a software is one way to go, personally I´ve
been working for the biggest auctionhouse in sweden and we arcived ONLY
highres jpg´s. First we used photoshop (4) jpg´s at hightst quality, not any
sight of the jpg´s artifacts when printing. Later on we purchesed Binuscan
ColorPro and belive me when I say that there is a difference between jpg´s
at topsetting !!!
I have never seen any software making so good jpg ever, basta !
Now Binuscan also have released their PhotoRetouchPro with a quite magic
jpg removal algoritm,for really damaged images, have only seen it working
on screen, looks really good but like always, if it isn´t in the print - who
cares about it !?
I think that many people looks at oooh this is a jpg image, this must be a
really bad one, I don¹t feel that way at all. My boss once came to me
and said, Stefan can you tell me with scan/print is made with a Heidelberg
drumscanner and with one is a DaiNipon ?, tricky q I looked at the prints
and after a while (they were very similar) I said this one is the
heidelberg one... he just laughted at me and said, no that one is a Umax
PL 2000 (a 2000USD scanner at that time), what I want to say is, look at
the images, the prints, if these are good you don´t have to bother with all
this techical worries !
Cheers, Stefan
on 10/21/01 3:25 PM, Mark T. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:06 AM 21/10/01 -0600, Bill wrote:
...
o The JPEG standard includes a lossless setting. Photoshop 6 supports it:
set the quality level to 12. it will compress to, say, 1/3 of the original
size. JPEG only supports 24-bit images.
G'day Bill.
I had never heard of a lossless JPG, so I checked the JPEG FAQ, which
basically says that there *was* an early version of a lossless JPEG, but it
never took off. They also referred to a new standard called JPEG-LS - is
this what you meant? I couldn't see anything about it in the PS Help file,
but I only took a quick look. I would be most interested if PS6 really
does supprt a lossless JPG.. As far as I knew, the main players were/are:
TIFF
- 48-bit, lossless, large files
TIFF with LZ compression
- As above but files can be much smaller (esp if image is not grainy or
detailed), eg typically 1/2 to 1/5 original size
JPEG
- 24-bit, lossy but adjustable. File sizes often less than 1/5 of the
uncompressed TIFF (depending on quality setting and image content)
PNG
- 24-bit, lossless. File sizes usually a bit smaller than compressed TIFF,
but not as small as JPEG.
(PNG's are also readable by most browsers, which makes them useful for
'critical' web-display.)
FWIW, I always use TIFF without compression if in any doubt (I have had
quite a few problems with lack of portability of LZ'd TIFs), and I am now
moving over to PNG's for my own file storage in order to save CD
space. The lack of 48-bit quality hasn't yet been an issue for me..
mt
