Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007
a bit OT: optimisztion of images - help?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Angus Manwaring - 15 Mar 2007 20:59 GMT Hi all,
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but in some ways its pretty relevant.
Are any of you knowlegable in the art of optimising images? By that I mean reducing filesize and retaining as much quality as possible. I was pretty confident I knew what I was doing but recently I have been proven wrong.
I was actually trying to reduce the size of computer game screen shots to adorn my website with. My website has over 1000 reviews of Amiga computer games so I wanted to be doing it right. Anyway, an internet buddy took one of my raw .bmp screenshots and reduced it to a bit more than 10k in png format. I have not yet been able to get him to tell me his secret.
I have been messing about with Adobe Photoshop - Image Ready and Save for web etc, but cannot get close to that.
Can any of you explain how this is done?
If you're interested the original image is here:
http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell
Thanks for any help.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Grumman-581 - 15 Mar 2007 21:20 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of my raw .bmp screenshots and reduced it to a bit more than 10k in png > format. I have not yet been able to get him to tell me his secret. For BMP format, you can just load it into MS Paint and save it in JPG format... Most other image editing software will also allow a "Save As" option in which you will be able to specify the type of file for the new file...
frederick - 15 Mar 2007 21:39 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If you're interested the original image is here: png format is probably the best compression format for your purpose - with far less artifacts on images with areas of the same colour and geometic patterns - like your game screenshots. You can simply "save as png" from photoshop.
frederick - 15 Mar 2007 21:40 GMT > png format is probably the best compression format for your purpose - > with far less artifacts on images with areas of the same colour and > geometic patterns - like your game screenshots. > You can simply "save as png" from photoshop. oops - I meant to say "far less artifacts than heavily compressed jpgs"
Paul Furman - 15 Mar 2007 21:55 GMT >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > geometic patterns - like your game screenshots. > You can simply "save as png" from photoshop. Sometimes GIF gives good results if you set the pallete to just a few colors. Check out all the options in save-for-web
Angus Manwaring - 16 Mar 2007 21:42 GMT On 15-Mar-07 20:39:04, frederick said
>> I was actually trying to reduce the size of computer game screen shots to >> adorn my website with. My website has over 1000 reviews of Amiga computer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> If you're interested the original image is here: http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell/
>png format is probably the best compression format for your purpose - >with far less artifacts on images with areas of the same colour and >geometic patterns - like your game screenshots. >You can simply "save as png" from photoshop. Yup, sorry I perhaps didn't make myself clear. I'm fine with saving in a given format, but its the intricacies of optimising for that format in Image Ready, Fireworks or whatever that I'm after.
I felt sure somebody here would know, said Angus provocatively. :)
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 17 Mar 2007 03:30 GMT > On 15-Mar-07 20:39:04, frederick said >>> I was actually trying to reduce the size of computer game screen shots to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I felt sure somebody here would know, said Angus provocatively. :) The sample screenshot you posted is RGB and has more than 256 colours. Was that the original size - or did you resize in PS? Was that the image your friend saved as 10kb png? For saving in *png(using The Gimp): Converting colour mode to 256 colour indexed. Save as png, level 9 compression. File size 36.4 kb http://i14.tinypic.com/4hlas0k.png Convert to 16 colours indexed (no dithering), save as png level 9 compression. File size 11.7kb. http://i17.tinypic.com/35lt83k.png Leave as RGB, save as jpeg. Quality 25 (out of 100), DCT method - floating. File size 11.7kb. http://i18.tinypic.com/29o4y81.jpg
Angus Manwaring - 19 Mar 2007 19:44 GMT On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said
>> On 15-Mar-07 20:39:04, frederick said >> >> I felt sure somebody here would know, said Angus provocatively. :) >> >The sample screenshot you posted is RGB and has more than 256 colours. >Was that the original size - or did you resize in PS? I believe that's the original grab. Simply saved into Paint in BMP format.
>Was that the image your friend saved as 10kb png? Exactly that, yes.
>Convert to 16 colours indexed (no dithering), save as png level 9 >compression. File size 11.7kb. >http://i17.tinypic.com/35lt83k.png I can't use this as the colours are not representative of the original.
>Leave as RGB, save as jpeg. Quality 25 (out of 100), DCT method - >floating. File size 11.7kb. >http://i18.tinypic.com/29o4y81.jpg The compression here has caused pretty serious degradation of the image.
>For saving in *png(using The Gimp): >Converting colour mode to 256 colour indexed. Save as png, level 9 >compression. File size 36.4 kb >http://i14.tinypic.com/4hlas0k.png This is entirely acceptable from a quality point of view, but unfortunately it is nearly 4 times the file size of the version my friend produced.
I have put his version on my site so it can be seen. I think he#s gone a bit over the top with the sharpness, but he has produced a high quality image (note the intact graduation of the sky for instance) with a comparatively tiny file size. How? :)
Frederick, thanks for your time on this. If anybody think's they can approach the optimised image in terms of file size and quality, I would be very eager for them to follow-up with advice.
Cheers.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Paul Furman - 19 Mar 2007 22:01 GMT > On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > approach the optimised image in terms of file size and quality, I would be > very eager for them to follow-up with advice. Here's a PS CS PNG-24 save-for-web at 20.5K: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/opti-24.png There aren't any options for that in CS.
frederick - 19 Mar 2007 22:55 GMT > On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said >>> On 15-Mar-07 20:39:04, frederick said [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Cheers. I don't see a link to the optimised png you mention above. The original bitmap has 64,000 pixels. Colorcube analysis shows that it has 18215 unique colours, so the start position shows that to compress to the sort of file size you want, then before compressing and saving as png a lot of the original image information has to be discarded beforehand. It does reduce down to indexed 256 colours (without dithering) quite well (that's a subjective call), but even optimising using a special tool like PNGOut on extreme settings, to get a reasonable result then file size is still much larger than 10kb. You can reduce the number of colours further and retain some "smoothness" by different dithering methods, but that means that (much) less compression is possible. In photoshop, you can preview the effect in a dialog as you change image mode from rgb to indexed, and play with the number of indexed colours, dithering method etc (No dithering will always give lowest file size) I feel that the *trick* - if there is one - is back further in the workflow. Are you producing the bitmaps from an emulator? Are there settings to reduce colours or change video settings, so that you get an optimum appearance with minimum colours? Perhaps has some trick like perhaps using a known, saved, reduced colour pallette that he has produced from other images from the emulator to index your bmp to before saving as a png. Unless it's something like that, then I think I am am stumped.
Paul Furman - 19 Mar 2007 23:21 GMT >> On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> > I don't see a link to the optimised png you mention above. It's in the OP: http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell/ http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell/opti.png <--- http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell/orig.bmp
Here's a whole boatload of png options in irfanview: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/irfanview-png-settings.png They link to this page: http://advsys.net/ken/
I couldn't make sense of it but I didn't spend much time either... looks like there's something to learn though!
> The original bitmap has 64,000 pixels. Colorcube analysis shows that it > has 18215 unique colours, so the start position shows that to compress [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > index your bmp to before saving as a png. Unless it's something like > that, then I think I am am stumped. frederick - 20 Mar 2007 00:28 GMT > Perhaps has some trick like perhaps using a known, saved, reduced colour > pallette that he has produced from other images from the emulator to > index your bmp to before saving as a png. Unless it's something like > that, then I think I am am stumped. hmmm... I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your friend's png: http://i13.tinypic.com/449w1l1.png (just over 9kb)
There's something fundamentally wrong with the bitmap file you posted. At 100%, then it's not what I'd expect. http://i12.tinypic.com/311t5ec.png
That is the root of the problem - and I don't think that much can be done unless you get a better screen capture - so yes I am stumped if the starting point for your friend's png was in fact exactly the bmp you posted.
Paul Furman - 20 Mar 2007 00:48 GMT >> Perhaps has some trick like perhaps using a known, saved, reduced >> colour pallette that he has produced from other images from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > friend's png: > http://i13.tinypic.com/449w1l1.png (just over 9kb) How'd ya do that?
> There's something fundamentally wrong with the bitmap file you posted. > At 100%, then it's not what I'd expect. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > starting point for your friend's png was in fact exactly the bmp you > posted. frederick - 20 Mar 2007 01:46 GMT >> hmmm... >> I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your >> friend's png: >> http://i13.tinypic.com/449w1l1.png (just over 9kb) > > How'd ya do that? http://advsys.net/ken/util/pngout.htm
Paul Furman - 20 Mar 2007 01:56 GMT >>> hmmm... >>> I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > http://advsys.net/ken/util/pngout.htm Ah, the thing in irfanview. Angus ought to be able to show up his friend with that!
frederick - 20 Mar 2007 02:24 GMT >>>> hmmm... >>>> I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ah, the thing in irfanview. > Angus ought to be able to show up his friend with that! Well I'll be... Irfanview with the pngout plugin does even better: http://i14.tinypic.com/2vigvsw.png under 9kb!
Angus Manwaring - 21 Mar 2007 18:26 GMT On 20-Mar-07 00:56:20, Paul Furman said
>>>> hmmm... >>>> I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >> http://advsys.net/ken/util/pngout.htm
>Ah, the thing in irfanview. >Angus ought to be able to show up his friend with that! Well, if I could do it by starting from the original .bmp like he did then I think I could at least not hang my head in shame. :)
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Angus Manwaring - 21 Mar 2007 18:23 GMT On 19-Mar-07 23:28:48, frederick said
>> Perhaps has some trick like perhaps using a known, saved, reduced colour >> pallette that he has produced from other images from the emulator to >> index your bmp to before saving as a png. Unless it's something like >> that, then I think I am am stumped.
>hmmm... >I can get another 1kb off file size losslessly by optimising your >friend's png: >http://i13.tinypic.com/449w1l1.png (just over 9kb) Uh, uh, uh.... :) that's why I didn't post his version in the first place. I appreciate your point, but the objective is to match (or approach) his optimisation from the original .bmp. I'm suspect he could have trimmed the filesize down a little further, but it was very much,
Hey dude, what can you manage with this?
Err.... how's this?
Wow!
>That is the root of the problem - and I don't think that much can be >done unless you get a better screen capture - so yes I am stumped if the >starting point for your friend's png was in fact exactly the bmp you posted. Yes it was. Its a bit of a poser isn't it. :)
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 22 Mar 2007 02:52 GMT > On 19-Mar-07 23:28:48, frederick said >>> Perhaps has some trick like perhaps using a known, saved, reduced colour [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Yes it was. Its a bit of a poser isn't it. :) Yes - and I've explained my doubts elsewhere. It has annoyed me enough to want to know the solution, even though finding out is of no use to me.
Angus Manwaring - 21 Mar 2007 18:17 GMT On 19-Mar-07 21:55:11, frederick said
>> On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said >>>> On 15-Mar-07 20:39:04, frederick said >>>> I felt sure somebody here would know, said Angus provocatively. :)
>> Cheers. >> >I don't see a link to the optimised png you mention above. Sorry, my mistake.
http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell
>The original bitmap has 64,000 pixels. Colorcube analysis shows that it >has 18215 unique colours, so the start position shows that to compress [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >indexed colours, dithering method etc (No dithering will always give >lowest file size) Okay, in all likelihood the actual game screen only had 32 colours, very often the games used just 16 but I belive this one uses more.
>I feel that the *trick* - if there is one - is back further in the >workflow. Are you producing the bitmaps from an emulator? Are there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >index your bmp to before saving as a png. Unless it's something like >that, then I think I am am stumped. That's an interesting thought.
Yes, I'm saving them from WinUAE, which is a lot easier to capture screenshots with than my Amiga.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 22 Mar 2007 01:42 GMT > On 19-Mar-07 21:55:11, frederick said >>> On 17-Mar-07 02:30:05, frederick said [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Yes, I'm saving them from WinUAE, which is a lot easier to capture > screenshots with than my Amiga. It still doesn't explain how - if your friend had the same starting point - this is possible. Top image crop (viewed at 800%) is from the bitmap you posted, bottom is from your friend's opti.png. Note that the graduations / lines in the "sky" are completely consistent horizontally with the crop from the png. With the bmp however, there is a "halo" effect of lighter coloured pixels in the sky around the "trees" http://i14.tinypic.com/4hvyz4x.png
I can extract the colour pallette used in "opti.png", and then change the bmp from rgb colours to indexed using the same colour pallete as I've extracted from opti.png. But the halo effect seen in the rgb version remains. The conversion process chooses closest indexed colour to the rgb pixel value and has exactly the same indexed pallette to work from that is in "opti.png". Something smells bad... http://i12.tinypic.com/2mnqdlc.png
To double check, I did the same in Photoshop and Gimp, with identical results.
So - yes - I'm stumped. Something isn't right. Are you 100% sure that you didn't save the bmp at a larger size then shrink it again using photoshop or similar with default settings to "interpolate" perhaps also with a little sharpening? That's how it looks to me.
Angus Manwaring - 22 Mar 2007 20:34 GMT On 22-Mar-07 00:42:52, frederick said
>> Yes, I'm saving them from WinUAE, which is a lot easier to capture >> screenshots with than my Amiga. >> >It still doesn't explain how - if your friend had the same starting >point - this is possible. That's been my problem from the outset. :)
>Top image crop (viewed at 800%) is from the bitmap you posted, bottom is ----SNIP----
>To double check, I did the same in Photoshop and Gimp, with identical >results. I didn't completely follow that, but that's me being thick probably.
>So - yes - I'm stumped. Something isn't right. Are you 100% sure that >you didn't save the bmp at a larger size then shrink it again using >photoshop or similar with default settings to "interpolate" perhaps also >with a little sharpening? That's how it looks to me. You know that is probably right, not the sharpening, but I think the .bmp produced out at a higher resolution than an Amiga would actually display it at, so I cropped it to 320x200 probably in Photoshop - no sharpening though, I'm sure. And, as I say, this was the version I sent to my friend.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 22 Mar 2007 21:34 GMT > You know that is probably right, not the sharpening, but I think the .bmp > produced out at a higher resolution than an Amiga would actually display > it at, so I cropped it to 320x200 probably in Photoshop - no sharpening > though, I'm sure. And, as I say, this was the version I sent to my friend. OK. I don't have Photoshop CS - only Photoshop 7. PS 7 doesn't have the optional settings for interpolation when resampling "sharper", so to test, I have to carry it out as a separate operation. What version of Photoshop did you use?
1)Resize "opti.png" to 1200 x 750, then resize back to original 320 x 200, with a little sharpening applied. 2)The original "opti.png" 3)The original "orig.bmp" from your site.
Crops from above, viewed at 800% : http://i12.tinypic.com/2vbobc0.png
I don't know the exact size of the original. I also don't know the interpolation and sharpening algorithm that it appears must have been applied - albeit inadvertently. But, you can see in sample 1) that the lines of gradation in the sky is disrupted next to the "trees" in almost an identical pattern to "orig.bmp". If you analyse colours, then the interpolation also increases the pallete from the original 32, to many thousands of colours. For me, this is case closed.
How your friend managed to get "opti.png" from "orig.bmp" is a mystery. In my opinion, only some remote possibilities: 1) He did his own screen capture. Perhaps to convince you that he didn't do this, he made sure that scores and positions were identical, by altering the image by hand, even cutting a pasting some elements from orig.bmp to his version could be possible. 2) He adjusted the whole image pixel by pixel, perhaps using a cloning tool. 64,000 pixels, many of which need "correcting" would mean a lot of work, more than most people would want to do as a prank. 3) The "damage" to your copy of orig.bmp happened after you sent a copy to him - perhaps you sent him the original larger version. 4) There is somewhere an image manipulation program that "undoes" the apparent damage caused by "sharpening" and interpolation algorithms, and your friend has found it. That would be a very useful program for photographers, but AFAIK it doesn't exist, and to make it would be a huge challenge.
Angus Manwaring - 24 Mar 2007 19:34 GMT On 22-Mar-07 20:34:43, frederick said
>> You know that is probably right, not the sharpening, but I think the .bmp >> produced out at a higher resolution than an Amiga would actually display [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >test, I have to carry it out as a separate operation. What version of >Photoshop did you use? Spookily, Photoshop 7.
>I don't know the exact size of the original. I also don't know the >interpolation and sharpening algorithm that it appears must have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >increases the pallete from the original 32, to many thousands of colours. >For me, this is case closed. Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a rare visit back to the pc that I used for the operation, today, and I'm sure I have the original uncut version now on my website in the directory with the other 2 files.
http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell
I appreciate your time and effort on this, and if I've misled you at all, albeit unintentionally, my apologies.
Cheers for any further thoughts.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Warren Block - 24 Mar 2007 23:15 GMT > Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a > rare visit back to the pc that I used for the operation, today, and I'm > sure I have the original uncut version now on my website in the directory > with the other 2 files. > > http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell That is much easier. In GIMPShop:
Crop to just the image at 640x400 Change Mode to indexed color with an optimized palette of 40 colors Change Image Size to 320x200 with no interpolation Save image as PNG with all options turned off and maximum compression
That results in a file that is 633 bytes smaller than opti.png but looks just like it.
 Signature Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
Angus Manwaring - 27 Mar 2007 10:55 GMT On 24-Mar-07 22:15:01, Warren Block said
>> Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a >> rare visit back to the pc that I used for the operation, today, and I'm >> sure I have the original uncut version now on my website in the directory >> with the other 2 files. >> >> http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell
>That is much easier. In GIMPShop:
> Crop to just the image at 640x400 > Change Mode to indexed color with an optimized palette of 40 colors > Change Image Size to 320x200 with no interpolation > Save image as PNG with all options turned off and maximum compression
>That results in a file that is 633 bytes smaller than opti.png but looks >just like it. Well done Warren. Would this follow the same sequence in Photoshop do you know? And thanks. :)
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Warren Block - 28 Mar 2007 00:54 GMT > On 24-Mar-07 22:15:01, Warren Block said >>That is much easier. In GIMPShop: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well done Warren. Would this follow the same sequence in Photoshop do you > know? And thanks. :) Should be the same process in any image editing software, although the terms may vary.
 Signature Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
frederick - 25 Mar 2007 11:18 GMT > Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a > rare visit back to the pc that I used for the operation, today, and I'm > sure I have the original uncut version now on my website in the directory > with the other 2 files. > > http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/howthehell Yay... From your bmp: http://i11.tinypic.com/2prba6c.png 8.95kb
Angus Manwaring - 27 Mar 2007 10:55 GMT On 25-Mar-07 10:18:21, frederick said
>> Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a >> rare visit back to the pc that I used for the operation, today, and I'm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >http://i11.tinypic.com/2prba6c.png >8.95kb Great stuff! :)
Can you talk me through your process Frederick? I read Warren's but don't have access to GIMP.
And apologies from me, to all concerned, clearly my admin on this (or lack of it) has caused the confusion. :(
And thanks again.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 28 Mar 2007 22:20 GMT > On 25-Mar-07 10:18:21, frederick said >>> Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And thanks again. You may want to consider that size of the original capture at 640 x 400 pixels is small enough for display on most user's systems. 320 x 200 pixels looks pretty small on my monitor running at 1600 x 1200. The "cost" for the larger image is small - where at 320 x 200 the final file size can be around 9kb, at 640 x 400, file size only goes up to around <13kb - pretty good considering that the image covers 4 times the area.
Gimp is freeware - versions for windows, unix, mac, are available. Photoshop is also fine, but outrageously priced for most things people use it for. I could talk you through using photoshop 7, but IMO you'd still want to use a tool to optimise png compression, so rather than those, I'd suggest using just Irfanview as an "all in one" solution (you might be able to use it for screen capture as well). http://www.irfanview.com/ Download the Irfanview plug-ins package, as you'll need the "pngout" plugin.
Open the screen capture image in irfanview, maximise the window, and select | view | display options | Fit images to window. Use your mouse to select a rectangle around the image. Then Edit | Crop. This gets rid of the black border. I didn't have too much trouble selecting the 640x400 rectangle, but YMMV. Resize the image down to half size (if you want to go from the original 640 x 400 to 320 x 200). Make sure that the size is exactly half - there's a button in the "Resize Resample" dialog to choose half size. Also make sure that "apply sharpen after resample" is unchecked, and that "resize (faster)" and not "resample (better quality)" is selected. Then save as - select "Save as type" "png - portable network graphics". With the plugins installed, this makes an additional "pngout" dialog appear. Make sure that the check box "Use Pngout Plugin is selected. Most default options are probably fine - but change the compression level to "9". In this case the pngout plugin automatically determines the number of unique colours in the image, and changes colour mode from rgb to indexed (*in this case 40 unique colours). I also unselected the default Keep Chunks "pHYs" to "None" and don't know enough about why, just that the PNGOut command line tool has none as default, and I've no idea why the Irfanview plugin is different. Hit the save button - job done.
*Alternately, in Irfanview you can select Image | Reduce colour depth, and preview the effect of reducing the palette down further to save file size - down to about 32 colours actually seems okay for your test image, but by 16 colours, the gradient in the sky becomes posterised (striped). If you do it this way, usually make sure that the "Use Floyd-Steinberg Dithering" is unselected. As an example, the increased complexity of dithering when reducing palette to 16 colours costs more in final file size (and give IMO a worse result) than just sticking with the original 40 colours.
Angus Manwaring - 03 Apr 2007 18:50 GMT On 28-Mar-07 21:20:50, frederick said
>> On 25-Mar-07 10:18:21, frederick said >>>> Right, well I may have cocked up somewhere along the line. But I made a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >size can be around 9kb, at 640 x 400, file size only goes up to around ><13kb - pretty good considering that the image covers 4 times the area. Okay, but..... I'm looking (optimistically) at getting 2 screenshots for each game review, so when you multiply the filesize by over 2000 it starts to add up. Also, the games actual resolution would usually be 320x200 so I quite want to go with that.
>Gimp is freeware - versions for windows, unix, mac, are available. >Photoshop is also fine, but outrageously priced for most things people >use it for. I could talk you through using photoshop 7, The trouble is I don't have access to a pc as such. I have one at work, but we are restricted as to what software we can have installed on it.
There is Photoshop 7 on the pc at home but getting past my son is a major battle. :)
Also I have just bought Photoshop 4.0 for my Amiga (under Mac emulation) so that is a possibility, but probably not a very streamlined one.
>Open the screen capture image in irfanview, maximise the window, and >select | view | display options | Fit images to window. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Resize the image down to half size (if you want to go from the original >640 x 400 to 320 x 200). Stupid question time, why don't you go diretcly to 320x200?
Many thanks for the explanation.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
frederick - 05 Apr 2007 00:17 GMT > On 28-Mar-07 21:20:50, frederick said >>> On 25-Mar-07 10:18:21, frederick said [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to add up. Also, the games actual resolution would usually be 320x200 so I > quite want to go with that. Fair enough.
>> Gimp is freeware - versions for windows, unix, mac, are available. >> Photoshop is also fine, but outrageously priced for most things people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There is Photoshop 7 on the pc at home but getting past my son is a major > battle. :) That problem isn't unique :-)
> Also I have just bought Photoshop 4.0 for my Amiga (under Mac emulation) > so that is a possibility, but probably not a very streamlined one. Goodness - I have no idea.
>> Open the screen capture image in irfanview, maximise the window, and >> select | view | display options | Fit images to window. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Stupid question time, why don't you go diretcly to 320x200? The screen capture that you posted had a lot of black space around it, and the main part of it was 640 x 400.
The basics if you don't irfanview, but use some other program remain the same: If you change the image by resizing it - then don't use any interpolation as that "fuzzes out" detail to avoid aliasing effects, and that "fuzzing" of adjacent pixels adds extra colours that you don't want - as that will add to file size. Most programs will allow you to change colour mode from "RGB" (what you get from screen capture) to "indexed". If the program doesn't extract the colour pallette properly automatically, then it's not going to work very well. AFAIK Photoshop or Gimp do this well. Irfanview with the pngout plugin does it even better as it checks the colour depth of the RGB image, and works out whether it's better to leave the image as RGB, or whether final file size is better if the image is indexed, and then does all sorts of other analysis of the image to work out how to compress it the best. If you do use a program to manually change colour depth, then don't apply "dithering" (usually floyd steinberg is the option) as it adds complexity that results in larger file sizes. End result of using Irfanview with PNGOut probably isn't hugely better than you could do in Photoshop or Gimp, but it probably will be at least a bit better, and as I found out, it's easy. Another alternative would be to use the PNGout free command line tool to optimise a PNG after you've created it in Photoshop or Gimp. Now, perhaps this link may be of use if you end up instead doing it on the Mac: http://jonof.edgenetwork.org/index.php?p=kenutils
Angus Manwaring - 11 Apr 2007 19:40 GMT On 04-Apr-07 23:17:23, frederick said
>> On 28-Mar-07 21:20:50, frederick said >>>> On 25-Mar-07 10:18:21, frederick said [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > >That problem isn't unique :-)
:) He's just bough himself a new pc, but has "borrowed" the monitor from the other one!
>> Also I have just bought Photoshop 4.0 for my Amiga (under Mac emulation) >> so that is a possibility, but probably not a very streamlined one. >> >Goodness - I have no idea. Well, I'll be looking into it, but unfortunately the emulation doesn't support 16bit, just 15bit, which my Amiga's graphics card doesn't - so I have to use 8bit which is only 256 colours. :(
>If you change the image by resizing it - then don't use any >interpolation as that "fuzzes out" detail to avoid aliasing effects, and >that "fuzzing" of adjacent pixels adds extra colours that you don't want >- as that will add to file size. Got you - it seems like that nugget has been the root of my problem.
>>End result of using Irfanview with PNGOut probably isn't hugely better >than you could do in Photoshop or Gimp, but it probably will be at least [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of use if you end up instead doing it on the Mac: >http://jonof.edgenetwork.org/index.php?p=kenutils Very many thanks for sticking with me Frederick (and Warren). I've saved your messages and hope to start kicking some png butt shortly. :)
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Alan Browne - 19 Mar 2007 02:56 GMT > Can any of you explain how this is done? Sell me your 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF and I'll help...
Angus Manwaring - 19 Mar 2007 18:59 GMT On 19-Mar-07 01:56:20, Alan Browne said
>> Can any of you explain how this is done?
>Sell me your 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF and I'll help... Mmmm.... nice attitude.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Paul Furman - 19 Mar 2007 22:03 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Thanks for any help. Can you ask your friend what program they used to get the 10.5K png?
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 19 Mar 2007 22:28 GMT >Can you ask your friend what program they used to get the 10.5K png? Macromedia Fireworks MX from dropping the file into notepad.
 Signature Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Angus Manwaring - 21 Mar 2007 18:43 GMT On 19-Mar-07 21:28:37, REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG! said
>>Can you ask your friend what program they used to get the 10.5K png?
>Macromedia Fireworks MX from dropping the file into notepad. Yes. :) I dropped the file into Notepad, sent it to him and I gather he used Macromedia Fireworks.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Warren Block - 20 Mar 2007 00:16 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of my raw .bmp screenshots and reduced it to a bit more than 10k in png > format. I have not yet been able to get him to tell me his secret. The "optimized" image is clearer than the "original", particularly in the fonts, green grass, and yellow highlights. To me, the "optimized" image looks a lot more like a real Amiga image.
My guess is that he found the same image elsewhere, before it had been saved in a format that lost those details.
A dedicated practical joker might have cleaned up all those details by hand, too.
Either way, I bet you'll find out by April 1.
 Signature Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
Angus Manwaring - 21 Mar 2007 18:40 GMT On 19-Mar-07 23:16:32, Warren Block said
>> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> of my raw .bmp screenshots and reduced it to a bit more than 10k in png >> format. I have not yet been able to get him to tell me his secret.
>The "optimized" image is clearer than the "original", particularly in >the fonts, green grass, and yellow highlights. To me, the "optimized" >image looks a lot more like a real Amiga image.
>My guess is that he found the same image elsewhere, before it had been >saved in a format that lost those details.
>A dedicated practical joker might have cleaned up all those details by >hand, too.
>Either way, I bet you'll find out by April 1. No. It actually would not have been straightforward getting to exactly the same point in the game, same characters, same scores etc within the timeframe available, but he could certainly could have done it if he had wanted to, but I have no doubt this is not a wind-up, he genuinely has optimised the .bmp.
For more examples of his work (and an excelent Amiga site) check out:
http://hol.abime.net/3159/screenshot
I chose a particular game as a favourite, but you'll find pretty mcuh everything there.
All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
|
|
|