JPEG Quality

[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

[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

[dalel]

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

[Egg Bramhill]

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

[dalel]

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.]

[dalel]

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

[dalel]

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.]

[gwpriester]

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

[pduggan]

<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?

[dalel]

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