An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
http://0utpatient.home.comcast.net/noartifacts/ My son pointed out this format for saving image files. I thought it was very interesting. Jerry in Houston
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
Jerry in Houston wrote: http://0utpatient.home.comcast.net/noartifacts/ My son pointed out this format for saving image files. I thought it was very interesting. I think that article misses the point - JPEG was not designed for images with large areas of monotonous colour and sharp edges, it was designed for photographs. If you do need artefact-free (lossless) compression then there are better options for photos than PNG - lossless JPEG or lossless JPEG2000 for example. S
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
Jerry in Houston wrote: http://0utpatient.home.comcast.net/noartifacts/ My son pointed out this format for saving image files. I thought it was very interesting. Jerry in Houston An interesting expose! However, as with most image manipulation schemes, an image format such as .png is useful only to you personally, on your own computer, or someone who has all the same image viewing capabilities you have. To just arbitrarily send a .png file to someone would be folly, no? It's not in wide enough use yet. So it seems to me... keith whaley
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
PNG format is quite interesting, but not IMHO for saving image files. Displaying them maybe but not saving them. PNG was primarily designed to replace GIF and does an admirable job of that. Anyone who wants to get really geeky can read all about PNG here: http://www.libpng.org/ Jerry in Houston wrote: http://0utpatient.home.comcast.net/noartifacts/ My son pointed out this format for saving image files. I thought it was very interesting. Jerry in Houston -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Subject: Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG PNG format is quite interesting, but not IMHO for saving image files. Displaying them maybe but not saving them. PNG was primarily designed to replace GIF and does an admirable job of that. Sixteen bit TIFF anyone? Seems to work William Robb
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:45 PM, William Robb wrote: Sixteen bit TIFF anyone? Seems to work Yeah, that's what I do. When I open a JPEG out of my camera, in Photoshop, the first thing I do is save it as a TIFF. From there, I keep it until I save a copy for printing, and that's when I do sharpening and sizing. Only the jpeg gets these things. The TIFF is for working and saving. JPEGs are for web and sharing. Works great for me! (and my hard drive is filling.) ;-) -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
At 09:46 AM 29/11/2004 , Jon Glass wrote: Yeah, that's what I do. When I open a JPEG out of my camera, in Photoshop, the first thing I do is save it as a TIFF. All this does is make the file much larger. Saving as tif or psd makes sense for images which you edit but the if the original is a jpg archive that. Don't edit the original jpg and re-save it. Powell
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
On Nov 29, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: All this does is make the file much larger. Saving as tif or psd makes sense for images which you edit but the if the original is a jpg archive that. Don't edit the original jpg and re-save it. Right, but I'm also not opening an image in PS unless I'm going to be editing it. :-) I do the save as... to prevent me from accidently saving it as a jpeg again. -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
- Original Message - From: Powell Hargrave Subject: Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG At 09:46 AM 29/11/2004 , Jon Glass wrote: Yeah, that's what I do. When I open a JPEG out of my camera, in Photoshop, the first thing I do is save it as a TIFF. All this does is make the file much larger. Saving as tif or psd makes sense for images which you edit but the if the original is a jpg archive that. Don't edit the original jpg and re-save it. Ummm, I think the point is that if you need to edit the jpeg, you should be saving it as something that isn't compressed, rather than recompressing it. William Robb
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:17:45 -0600, William Robb wrote: Ummm, I think the point is that if you need to edit the jpeg, you should be saving it as something that isn't compressed, rather than recompressing it. That's true if you're using lossy compression like JPEG. If you're using lossless compression, like lossless JPEG, TIFF PackBits, TIFF LZ, GIF, or PNG (or others), you don't need to worry about it. Of course, lossless compression will (almost?) always be less effective than lossy compression. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: An Alternative to JPEG...:PNG
On Nov 30, 2004, at 1:17 AM, William Robb wrote: Ummm, I think the point is that if you need to edit the jpeg, you should be saving it as something that isn't compressed, rather than recompressing it. Correct. Each time you save a jpeg, you are re-compressing it, thereby losing more and more data--at least that's what they say, and what I have seen in my images. So, once I modify a file, it's a TIFF. The advantage of TIFF is that I can save layers, etc. Sometimes, with extremely complex images, I save them as psd files--er, photoshop files. I wish you could save the history of a file with it... sigh... -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
