Please improve the quality of JPEG images - particularly when inserting text

[shiphen]

Dear Xara

Please can you improve the quality of JPEG images - particularly when inserting text.
See this thread...

http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthre...xt-into-a-JPEG

With thanks

J

[gwpriester]

Why are you flogging this dead horse again?

As many people pointed out, if you need sharp text use PNG and not JPEG. Maybe you need to go back and read your thread again?

[mwenz]

It's just a request like the others in this forum section.

Personally I would just use a text editor on a local copy of the web site and do an appropriate search & replace of the image extension as is currently in the site. In UltraEdit S&R across a *huge* site of 3k HTML files takes about 2 minutes. Then I could upload PNGs using the same filename and be done with it. But that's me.

However, what is the reason that Xara cannot deal with red text as does the other applications mentioned in the OP's other thread? It appears to me that it is the degree of anit-aliasing causing the issue. Isn't that something that could be tweaked without too much "pain" for the developers?

And, like so many of the requests in the Dear Xara... section--ones we both would like to have--cannot the developers simply continue to ignore this one as well?

Best regards, Mike

[shiphen]

Why are you flogging this dead horse again?

As many people pointed out, if you need sharp text use PNG and not JPEG. Maybe you need to go back and read your thread again?

Gary I find your response extremely disappointing. I find it absolutely gobsmacking to hear that you are prepared to recommend that everyone abandon the JPEG format - which is afterall the dominant format for photographs on the internet, JUST because Xara cant match the image quality of a version of Photoshop that is over 10 years old. (i.e. version 6).

Gary over several years of occasional use of this forum I associated your name with the voice of reason, but on this occasion frankly you appear to be letting yourself down.

Dont you GET that there is a really important sense in which it is true that "the customer is always right". Yes there are a trillion different file types out there... but only to those in the know know what the heck they all do. And a significant number of new customers will ONLY know and trust JPEGs and GIFs. In fact many people I talk to, have never even heard of GIFs, they ONLY know about JPEGs(!). Moreover, if I am emailing an image to someone and they dont recognise the file type then quite rightly they refuse to open it. The question behind the question is why should users use a different file-type just because Xara happens to be rubbish at generating the dominant image format for photos?

In short you are talking like a techie not a person in marketing.

My question is, given that JPEG remains the dominant format for images why THE HECK is Xara so utterly crap at building JPEG images?

J

P.S. In my case we can not use JPEG because our system does not allow the use of JPEGs.

[zaphodeist]

My question is, given that JPEG remains the dominant format for images why THE HECK is Xara so utterly crap at building JPEG images?

It isn't. You're problem is that you are using the wrong file format for images which contain text. JPEG was NEVER created for such purposes.

P.S. In my case we can not use JPEG because our system does not allow the use of JPEGs.

I think you meant PNG right
That your system doesn't support PNG is your second problem.


Some light reading on the JPEG format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

Some myths and facts: http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm

In particular:

JPEG is an all-purpose format suitable for just about any image.

False. JPEG is best suited for large photographic images where file size is the most important consideration, such as images that will be posted on the Web or transmitted via email and FTP. JPEG is not suitable for most small images under a few hundred pixels in dimension, and it is not suitable for screen shots, images with text, images with sharp lines and large blocks of color, and images that will be edited repeatedly.

Another quote from that myths and facts site:

"Looking for a good alternative to the JPEG format? PNG, or portable network graphic, was developed to combat the inherent flaws in both the GIF and JPEG formats"

[mwenz]

Regardless, it is also a fact that PhotoShop SE, PhotoLine and other applications can export JPGs containing text at a quality level surpassing Xara's.

This is a Dear Xara... thread. Why the heck is this being argued about? Y'all can see the result from Xara and other applications. The developers can see the difference. It's up to them to either improve this area or not.

Mike

[Big Frank]

Personally I would just use a text editor on a local copy of the web site and do an appropriate search & replace of the image extension as is currently in the site. In UltraEdit S&R across a *huge* site of 3k HTML files takes about 2 minutes. Then I could upload PNGs using the same filename and be done with it. But that's me.

This raises two problems:

1. Many PNGs are much, much larger than JPGs of the same dimension. Gary Bouton's xmas tree image at 640 x 800 comes in at a 162 Kb JPG. The same image saved as PNG comes in at 625 Kb. PNGs are simply not suited to photographic images and, let's face it, just about all websites contain some of them
2. Many legacy scripts or server apps require JPGs -so if you're not comfortable adapting a script then you are up a creek without a paddle OR a big bill if you get screwed by a mediocre script hacker who realises there's a fast buck to made here

Therefore, there are occasions when you simply cannot do a blanket file extension search & replace. So, this leaves you looking for a solution to your problem which is...

Dear Xara: Please improve the quality of JPEG images - particularly when inserting text

http://xaradesigner.co.uk/red-text-JPG/

[zaphodeist]

Bit confused here Frank, all the images you show as examples of .jpg are .png

e.g. http://xaradesigner.co.uk/red-text-J...tm_files/1.png

[Big Frank]

That's because I don't want JPG to degrade them any further - they are sections of the larger images, to show what JPG did to them, so I then saved them for my web page as PNG

[Luke.Hart]

Can you tell me what sub-sampling PS is using. Xara only does the standard (4:2:2) sub-sampling, but it seems that PS can use no-subsampling. As an experiment, I saved the same PNG file from GIMP in JPEG as both 4:2:2 and no-subsampled and you can see the difference in the comparison bitmap (zoomed 2x to make differences easily visible). For comparison the file sizes are 3.89KB and 4.65KB. Someone may like to verify the same is true when saving for PS (if it allows you to manually specify sub-sampling).