Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006
JPG compression question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Lombardi - 04 Apr 2006 20:47 GMT Canon 350D PSP X 02 RSP 2006
New to digital so will need a little help along if help posting are not off topic in this NG. My camera is set to L+Raw but have decided to cancel the L & just shoot in raw then convert to tiff or jpeg.I need to know what the best compression rate is for jpg's.I will be Emailing most of them but need good quality to be sent.I open psp > choose my raw file> save copy as> save as (jpg)> options> save options window (need best settings here).If choose jpg opttimizer (I need best settings here) Hope this is to long & rambling. Thanks for help
Mike G. - 04 Apr 2006 21:43 GMT > Canon 350D > PSP X 02 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Hope this is to long & rambling. > Thanks for help There are actually a couple of thing you need to consider here. At the end of the day, to email a photo, you want to have a reasonably sized file, say about 50-150 kbytes as a crude target. But you need to consider what type of connection the receiving party has. If dial-up, shoot for really small files, while if DSL or Cable, they can be bigger, like maybe 300-500 kb. But how many are you going to attach? My email service starts choking at around 2 mb of total attachments.
Next, what is the purpose of the files, from the receiving party's perspective? If they are to be viewed on-screen, you should resize them to smaller pixel dimensions. I don't know the (pixel) size of files from your camera, but would guess them to be about 2000 x 3000 pixels, giving about 6 megapixels. Many people would consider 1024 x 768 to be an average size screen, with some running at 800 x 600. Depending on whether your shots are landscape or portrait, you should resize them (use the highest quality algorithm your program offers) so they fit on the screen.
If they are to be printed, at what size? Ideally, you would want around 300 pixels per inch (ppi) for the highest quality print, so a 4 x 6 print would need 1200 x 1800 pixels, but 250 ppi will usually give a decent print, and even 150 - 200 ppi is OK for snapshot quality.
As far as jpg quality, it's a balancing act. Use the highest quality you can to get the file size you need to get to, after you've resized the pixel dimensions, per your intended use. How's that for vague? Sorry, but there's not just one right answer. However, be aware that in any case, you cannot significantly reduce a file size by only cutting jpg quality without resizing it smaller first. If you do, you will see noticeable damage:loss of quality and gross artifacts - sometimes banding in the sky, or other areas with little detail.
One final thought: If your files have an embedded profile of Adobe RGB 1998 (this would result from a setting in your camera), convert them to sRGB before sending them out for general use and viewing. If you don't, they will look dull and lifeless when viewed in any application (most of them) that doesn't support color management.
So essentially, your steps are:
1: Convert to sRGB, if necessary.
2: Resize to pixel dimensions depending on intended use.
3: Save at highest jpg quality possible to get the size file you can reasonably send. If the file will not be resaved multiple times, even a quality of about 40-50% of max (don't know what type of scale your progam uses) - can be reasonable.
As a final thought, since you're new to digital, get into the mindset of thinking in pixel dimensions. Inches are meaningless for the most part, until you go to print. At that point, use the 300 ppi (or 250, or ...) x paper dimensions, but for everything else, just think in total pixels. Every program I've ever seen gets all hung up in meaningless dimension hell. Is a screen 72ppi? 96? My 4x6 file looks too big, or too small: is it at 72ppi, 120, 300, 89,352.43??? Who cares, and so what. Just think in total pixels and don't get lost in the other stuff. It just doesn't matter. Hope this helps.
Good luck. Mike
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 00:32 GMT > There are actually a couple of thing you need to consider here. At the > end of the day, to email a photo, you want to have a reasonably sized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like maybe 300-500 kb. But how many are you going to attach? My email > service starts choking at around 2 mb of total attachments. Bit of a "side bar" here ...
If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect in most cases, will be all that you ever need (it was in my case).
I really can't fault the service.
Whilst I'm here, a quick comment on the previous posters advise re: resolutions ...
My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really closely.
Cheers,
Colin
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 05 Apr 2006 00:55 GMT >My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is >indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really >closely. You seem to be mixing up the concepts of printer DPI and printed image PPI, quite different things. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 02:15 GMT > >My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is > >indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really > >closely. > > You seem to be mixing up the concepts of printer DPI and printed image PPI, > quite different things. I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure.
How's this ...
"With the image sized correctly in Photoshop, any resolutions over 240 pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"
Siggy - 05 Apr 2006 15:52 GMT > I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would > try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with > resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results" I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead.
Nigel
 Signature I have no evidence for stating the above, but this is usenet, so I don't need any.
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 05 Apr 2006 21:53 GMT >> I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would >> try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with >> resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results" Better. Though as stated by Nigel it's best to give the printer driver the native resolution if wants, otherwise it will resample the image itself.
>I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the >printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution >of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be >reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead. This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 23:51 GMT > >I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the > >printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want > 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360. I have to wonder if this is more theory than practice. From my experience the output is so damned good I'd be hard-pressed to recognise anything that was better.
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 06 Apr 2006 00:05 GMT >> >I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the >> >printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the output is so damned good I'd be hard-pressed to recognise anything that >was better. Possibly true, but one might ask why leave it up to chance? Some folks use Qimage to print, which automatically gives the printer driver it's native resolution.
-- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com
Andrew Haley - 06 Apr 2006 11:39 GMT >>> I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would >>> try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with >>> resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"
> Better. Though as stated by Nigel it's best to give the printer driver the > native resolution if wants, otherwise it will resample the image itself.
>>I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the >>printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution >>of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be >>reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead.
> This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want > 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360. This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die.
I did the experiment myself. The professional printers work at 720 ppi too. See
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en&
You can try for yourself at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/.
Andrew.
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 06 Apr 2006 22:07 GMT >This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die. > >I did the experiment myself. The professional printers work at 720 >ppi too. See No one said they didn't work.
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en& And I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. OK, you printed an image at 720 ppi, so? This doesn't prove the driver does not natively want 360 ppi, which Bill Hilton stated here a while ago when we went through this.
>You can try for yourself at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/. As I only own an R800, how to propose I do that? -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com
Andrew Haley - 07 Apr 2006 12:58 GMT >>This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die. >> >>I did the experiment myself. The professional printers work at 720 >>ppi too. See
> No one said they didn't work. Well, what does "It would seem the consumer grade printers want 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360." mean, exactly? I take it to mean that the native resolution of the professional printers is 360 dpi, and therefore higher resolutions can't be printed.
>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en& > And I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. OK, you > printed an image at 720 ppi, so? It rather proves that the driver will print at 720 ppi.
> This doesn't prove the driver does not natively want 360 ppi, which > Bill Hilton stated here a while ago when we went through this. The native driver is switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the switch is called "finest detail".
Bill Hilton was wrong when he wrote
> The Epson wide formats have a native rez of 360 ppi and I explained why at the time. In fact, the native driver is switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the switch is called "finest detail". As I also said at the time, anybody who has one can do the experiment.
Andrew.
Paul Furman - 07 Apr 2006 17:45 GMT At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x.
>>>This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die. >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Andrew. Thomas T. Veldhouse - 10 Apr 2006 21:42 GMT > At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide > print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x. Since when does somebody print, or otherwise display an image at 720dpi? My point is that your upsampling quite is wrong. If you want to print at 200 dpi, then you are talking about a 2x up sample based upon a 3000 pixel width for a 6MP sensor.
 Signature Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 10 Apr 2006 21:46 GMT >> At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide >> print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dpi, then you are talking about a 2x up sample based upon a 3000 pixel width > for a 6MP sensor. My apologies ... I took this out of context ... the printer would upsample back to 720dpi or 360dpi, depending upon the argument.
 Signature Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 10 Apr 2006 10:23 GMT >Well, what does "It would seem the consumer grade printers want 720 >ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360." mean, exactly? I >take it to mean that the native resolution of the professional >printers is 360 dpi, and therefore higher resolutions can't be >printed. That the driver would resample the image to it's native resolution and print the image.
>The native driver is switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the >switch is called "finest detail". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the switch is called "finest >detail". Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com
Mike G. - 05 Apr 2006 03:18 GMT > If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a > look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect > in most cases, will be all that you ever need (it was in my case). Thanks for the sendthisfile.com link. Looks really useful.
Mike
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 03:35 GMT > > If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a > > look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike You're welcome - I've been using it a bit and I really can't fault the service.
|
|
|