JPEG Quality

Dale Landry writes::

"The jpeg compression/quality could be better"

SOOOOOOooooooooooo ..........

Who knows what program does the BEST jpeg compression/quality ?

Let me know. If I don't already have it I will get it.

Rgds,
tad

Dale Landry writes::

"The jpeg compression/quality could be better"

SOOOOOOooooooooooo ..........

Who knows what program does the BEST jpeg compression/quality ?

Let me know. If I don't already have it I will get it.

Rgds,
tad

I use Save for Web and can get much smaller file sizes and much better image quality than from Xara X.

I export Xara X jpegs at 100% quality, then compress them further with PS.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

In Dales post he says he saves the jpg at 100% then imports it into PS.
As jpg is a lossy format, if you create a jpg at 100% is there any loss of detail? (I tend to export as png full colour which is a lossless format)
Does anyone have a definitive answer?
Egg

I probably should switch to exporting png's from Xara and compressing them as jpegs in PS. I am not yet used to using png's for any purpose and need to change my mindset.

It would be an interesting challenge to see how different apps handle jpeg compression.

Following is an image with these dimensions:
512 X 409 File size - 92k. (Sorry about the huge file size.)

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

[This message was edited by Dale Landry on January 30, 2003 at 14:57.]

Same dimensions.

Compression at 42% quality. File size 29k.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

Photoshop 23% quality. 21k.

I tried my jpeg cleaner and got this image down to 18k without any change in image quality. The cleaner removes unnecessary information from the file without affecting the image.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

[This message was edited by Dale Landry on January 30, 2003 at 15:47.]

I tend to like TIFFs for exporting as TIFF is a lossless compression method.

When e-mailing TIFFs I have found that if you export with no compression and then ZIP the file, the file will be smaller than if it were exported with LZW compression.

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>


The Xara Xone

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gwpriester:
I tend to like TIFFs for exporting as TIFF is a lossless compression method.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So is PNG* (as already stated by Egg...)

*Said the world's No.1 PNG fan!

BTW, I've never been able to get close to my XX-optimised JPEGs in Photoshop, but my Photoshop is only the LE version and perhaps that's the reason?

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

I have tried LE for optimizing and it is not nearly as effective as the "Save for Web" optimizing of full Photoshop.

Here is a jpeg done in Xara X, size 19k done with about 50% quality. It came out better than I thought it would.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

I use a freeware utility that cleans jpegs of their extraneous code, often resulting in files sizes 2-3k smaller. If your graphic is 10k, you can often reduce it to 7-8k, a substantial savings if you have a lot of small jpeg graphics.

Interestingly, Photoshop jpegs seem to have a lot more extraneous junk to clean out, whereas Xara X jpegs have almost nothing to clean out.

Rainbow Software

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

I use it a lot, specially when I have to squeeze a bunch of files because it can do optimizing using batch process... you can get it at

http://www.webopt.com/

Aram

Hi,
The information I have in working with JPeg is to save the graphic at 100% quality and any modification done after that save with different file name keeping the original graphic at its original condition as jpeg is lossless and everytime you save you lose some quality. The ideal is to save as tif then do your work saveing as jpeg to render to more programs that recognise the jpeg format.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim

jpg's are lossey, not lossless. But Im sure you meant this. I normally save originals as Full colour PNG's
Egg

That seems to be the ideal. I need to get in the habit of exporting full color PNGs.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

only reason I ever compress jpegs is to place em onto a website. png was supposed to be the replacement for this, but png is not yet useful for web. But its the best way to send an image for other uses, ie transfer between programs etc.

I use photoshop to prepare and resize a photographic image and export it at no compression as I find photoshop the worst (big file sizes for same quality) and it doesnt seem to have got any better even with ver7.
If it's a vector or photo/vector from xara to jpeg I save also at no compression (although xara is much better than photoshop in this regard).

When I have my jpegs all in the images folder ready for loading to the web, I use dreamweaver to optimize them all in Fireworks which is the best jpeg compresser Ive used, since ver1.

But then of course I have all the softwarte I need, working in education... if I didnt have the budget etc to get fireworks, I would possibly use xara but most likely use Irfanview, the freeware app you can download from http://www.tucows.com
Its resampling, compression and even sharpen filters are brilliant. And it's free. But it's a labour of love by its author, so thats why it's so good I guess.

Q