 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
601 online
Server Time:
2024-05-09 03:10:47
|
|
|
 ScourgeVW
     
call me Hamilton
Location: Not Hamilton Anymore.
Gender: Male
 |  |  | Photo quality reduced.
< on 11/9/2005 8:47 PM >
|  | | | How do I avoid having my pics mangled when I upload them?
It seems all my pics get screwed with whenever I put them up in the database. They get processed in some way that drastically reduces quality. I'm resizing to 600 pixels on the largest size and they usually come out around 40kb.
What gives?
Help 
Thanks
-George
http://mrscourge.deviantart.com/
Is it time for Man-Rage yet? |
|
Avatar-X
   
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 1 on 11/9/2005 8:53 PM >
| | | | You should upload your photos at a high quality, ie, a 800x600 file could be 300k. Then, the system will re-optimize them for you.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
'Dukes
Noble Donor
Gender: Male
At least someone llikes me
| |  | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 2 on 11/9/2005 11:42 PM >
| | | | I'm no expert, but one thing to avoid with any photo program is to take a great pic, resize it to the pixel and file size the forum will accept, then click "save" and allow it to do it's thing. Mistake; you want the same level of compression your camera gave that pic, but only a smaller image. In most programs, click "save as" then click the "options" or "advanced" button, which allows you to adjust the compression level. In many cases you need to save the resized image several times in order to avoid a highly compressed (garbage) image.
If the max size for a pic on the forum is 100k, resize it until you achieve 100k.
Like Av says, for the LDB, just go to town and bombard him with 10 meg images if you have the speed, the LDB will resize that sucker with decent results.
While we are on the subject does anyone know how to resize while approximating the original compression level? If I slide the bar to best quality, I get a larger file size than the original larger image. It seems somewhat "hit and miss". Anyone have any insight?
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Emperor Wang
Location: On an island, in a river
Fetish? What fetish?
| | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 3 on 11/10/2005 12:42 AM >
| | | | For the most part images in the LDB look great (considering their size), but I'm also curious as to how this optimizing process works. Is there a limit on the file size below which the optimizer will let the image into the DB unmolested? ie: Can I get around the thing at my end?
I'm asking because the pics in this gallery look especially bad and I'm thinking of redoing them. The original scans were pretty pretty bad to begin with, but they weren't *that* bad.
It's great to be alive! |
|
monki
Location: Sweden
Gender: Male
monki's climb better than ninhjas, it's a fact.
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 4 on 11/10/2005 12:52 AM >
| | | | Posted by 'Dukes
While we are on the subject does anyone know how to resize while approximating the original compression level? If I slide the bar to best quality, I get a larger file size than the original larger image. It seems somewhat "hit and miss". Anyone have any insight?
|
If you have a program that can read the exif-data and other info of the file there is something called "bpp", wich stands for bits per pixel, this is a way of "messuring" compression level. For an example a jpeg shot in the "fine" mode on a digital camera often has a bpp of 3.
I don't know if there are any programs capable of saving jpegs with the choice of bpp, but i think that every time you open-modify-save a jpeg it gets recompressed, so it should'nt really matter image-quality vice.
An excellent way of saving jpegs with full control over compression/filesize is to use the "Save for web" option in Photoshop, gives great results and you are able to see the image quality real-time.
Not an direct answer but I hope it helps you to some degree at least.
lets investigate. arrh arrh |
|
Washu
Location: Ottawa
Gender: Male
| |  | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 5 on 11/10/2005 2:01 AM >
| | | | Posted by monki
If you have a program that can read the exif-data and other info of the file there is something called "bpp", wich stands for bits per pixel, this is a way of "messuring" compression level. For an example a jpeg shot in the "fine" mode on a digital camera often has a bpp of 3.
|
Sorry, but this is incorrect. The number of bits per pixel in a standard JPEG has nothing to do with how compressed or not it is. JPEG files can only have one of two possible number of bits per pixel: 8 for grayscale images and 24 for colour.
I'm not sure what this "bpp" field you are seeing is for, but my guess is that it is indicating the bytes per pixel, which would be 24/8 = 3. Do you have any files with the bpp field set to something other than 1 or 3?
|
|
Pleiades
Location: Halifax
Gender: Male
| | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 6 on 11/10/2005 2:48 AM >
| | | | Perhaps the bpp is not a measurement of color depth but literally the filesize divided by the number of pixels.
For example: A 1.28MB jpg, 2048 x 1536 pixels
10,818,608 bits / 3,145,728 pixels = 3.439 Bits per pixel
This is an image taken on my 3.1 megapixel camera using the 'fine' setting.
If I compress the same image in photoshop using a quality setting of 1, I get an image that is only 109KB (and doesn't look all the shabby), using the same calculation I get 0.284 bits per pixel.
I just came up with all this off the top of my head, so it may not be what you guys are talking about, but it is a measure of compression. It isn't a very good measure however, because the size of a jpeg depends on the complexity of the image (that is, a photo will make a bigger file than a plain white image, even if you use all the same settings).
|
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 7 on 11/10/2005 4:47 AM >
| | | | There is no way to determine the original compression value of the image from the resulting JPEG, because the value is merely arbitrary, not a fixed scale. The only way you could possibly do it is if you had the original image to compare with.
The LDB resizer will always recompress your file. The reason for this is that it needs to make sure the .JPG files are in a format it understands.
JPG is a wide format -- the file could be 32bpp or even 64bpp, it could be in CMYK instead of RGB colour mode, it could have the wrong DPI setting, it could have an embedded colour profile, it could be set to Progressive mode.
Also, the JPG could have a ton of extra stuff in it -- EXIF metadata, thumbnails (sometimes more than one), audio recordings, "creator" data, guides, and a whole plethora of proprietary stuff.
The UER autosizer will resize your file to a hard 800x600 maximum, and will save ONLY the image data, in non-progressive 24bpp RGB 72dpi format. This helps keep filesizes low.
If you want to minimize compression, upload a high quality file at 800x600.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
monki
Location: Sweden
Gender: Male
monki's climb better than ninhjas, it's a fact.
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 8 on 11/10/2005 1:57 PM >
| | | |
You're right, better spank the one who told me otherwise.. guess it just sounded resonable..
hav'nt actually compared images with differnet kinds of compression before..
Thanks for clarifying that one.
lets investigate. arrh arrh |
|
atomx
Location: Brighton, ON
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 9 on 11/11/2005 10:36 AM >
| | | | Acctually I noticed that after I upload them they look fine, but if I want to add text the images the quality does degrade.
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." - Richard Cook |
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Photo quality reduced.
<Reply # 10 on 11/11/2005 1:17 PM >
| | | | Yes, if you use the "add credit" option AFTER the images are uploaded, the quality will get worse. You should use it during the upload.
The "add credit" option is for adding your name or copyright to the image -- it is NOT for making captions. It should always read something like "copyright 2005 atomx"
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 265 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741093376 pages have been generated.
|
|
