 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2008Shrinking a picture --- and it becomes blur !!
Hello ! I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put them online, they become blurred !! I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop to terragen to povray. When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or take 8 hours for rendering). As the filesize for a JPG with 8192 X 6144 resolution may go up to 30+ MB, I often have to shrink them to a more reasonable 1024 X 768, filesize about 800 KB or so. However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. In the 1024 X 768 JPG files, all those details become blurred. No matter it's a JPG ---> JPG shrink, or BMP ---> JPG shrink, or TIFF ---> JPG shrink, all those details are GONE !! I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect. Now my questions to all you Gurus as below --- 1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic to 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details? 2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking operation? Thank you all in advance !!! Sincerely, Lee > Hello ! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sincerely, > Lee What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven eighths of the data will be gone. ... >> 1. Can you tell me of the best way to shrink a 8192X6144 size graphic >> to >> 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details? ... > What were expecting? If you remove seven eighths of the data then seven > eighths of the data will be gone. Much less than 1/8 of the data remains. (1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining 786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625 > ... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (1024 X 768) / (8192 X 6144) = fraction remaining > 786432 / 50331648 = 0.015625 One time when I was a child my mother sent me to the store to buy ten pounds of potatoes. The bag was too heavy, so I took out nine pounds and threw them away. When I got home I couldn't believe it when I could find only one pound. I asked my mother how I could get them back, and she told me to go back to where I threw them away and bring them back; sadly, I couldn't find them. Allen >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >sadly, I couldn't find them. >Allen Stupid..! You should have kept the ten pounds with the one pound and carry all 11 pounds. You should never pick on a digital career when you grow up. (clever people never throw potatoes away, anyway.) > <hsyq8xg@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put >> them online, they become blurred !! Lee, Post a cropped sample of an original size and a reduced sample, and the method you used. Maybe someone can do better (or not). In photoshop, the bicubic sharper option in the pull-down ought to be a tad sharper. >> I do all kinds of computer graphics, from fractals to virtual >> landscape, to sci-fi rendering, using softwares ranging from photoshop [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> Sincerely, >> Lee  SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > > <hsyq...@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > method you used. Maybe someone can do better (or not). In photoshop, the > bicubic sharper option in the pull-down ought to be a tad sharper. The guy already did that ... A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG C. www.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG >> > <hsyq...@gmail.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > C. www.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG From what I can see, the 1K version is shrinked to smaller width and, as a result, there is an expected blurring due to pixel aliasing (partial overlaying). I can't make out what the ORI picture shows, but it seems it's just a larger version of an aliased image section. There's nothing wrong with your software, these are typical effects in image processing. SignatureHarris > When I am satisfied with a certain creation, I often make a master > copy with the resolution of 8192 X 6144 pixel. Why that size? Because > that's the largest size my puny computer (dual-core 3GHz CPU running > XP with 4GB RAM) can produce within a reasonably timeframe. (Give or > take 8 hours for rendering). You should render it to the size you're going to use. And then it'll only take a few minutes to render. You can always render it to a different size if needed. <snip: saves as jpeg> > However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details > that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my > 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. That's what jpeg compression does. It is a lossy compression method. How about saving as a png? It may not produce files as small as jpeg, but the images will not be blurred (assuming you don't use jpeg compression in the png!). Andrew If you are creating graphics from scratch, that is not from a camera of any kind, then consider making your important detail in a vector drawing program. If you can and if it works visually. Vectors will display as the very best possible given the resolution of the display in use. (Look at US paper currency under magnification. The engraving could be vectors.) I have not read nor seen anyone 'mixing' a vector image after scaling with a scaled raster image. The outcome will be a raster image with punctuations of very fine lines of detail and even colors (where the colors are unitary). (Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?) What an idea. I will explore it beginning tomorrow. My current grant runs out at 5PM today and I will be free for a week or so to use all this neat stuff for pure play. I mean research. > (Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?) nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf. >> (Didn't Steve Jobs' R&D people have postscript display in their neXt OS?) > > nextstep/openstep used display postscript and os x uses pdf. Sun's NeWS also used PostScript. All a bit moot now. These days you would use SVG. SignatureRegards, Martin Leese E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello ! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sincerely, > Lee As advised, rendering to the size you want may be the best way. Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm - eg in Irfanview. Also, downsizing in steps may work better, in other words, try reducing in steps of say 20% (or even less), and then experiment with light sharpening (USM) at each step - Irfanview has this function built in, but I can usually do a little better manually. I've found what works for some images, doesn't work as well for others.. and I've never experimented with rendered images, so all this may be useless... (O: The best you can hope for is one/two-pixel sharpness, so maybe you are expecting too much? > On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8) I'm not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) would help. BugBear > mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > BugBear But I did also refer to downsizing in much smaller steps - and Lanczos will possibly help there... In rec.photo.digital mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote: >> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Apr 29, 4:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> ? BugBear > But I did also refer to downsizing in much smaller steps - and Lanczos > will possibly help there... I experimented with downsizing in Irfanview with the Lanczos option and found that doing it in a number of steps never produced better results, and sometimes produced worse ones. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8) > I'm not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) > would help. Bilinear interpolation is not the same as a box filter at greater than 2x reduction. Using bilinear interpolation at those kind of ratios wouldn't be very wise. As for it being an exact integer ratio, that doesn't automatically make a box filter the best or best looking filter. Pixels are not little squares (and not little sincs either). Sampling pixels with a box shaped footprint will create stair stepping. Marco I assume the software you’re using performs antialiasing (a low-pass filter) when shrinking an image which has a blurring effect. In order to check this out, you can create a synthetic bar image (half black half white) and try to resize it. If the edge gets blurred – it’s most probably due to the antialiasing filter. I don’t know whether you can ask the software not to perform this filter in advanced, but you can always code it yourself (using MATLAB/ C etc.). -Sagiv. > As for it being an exact integer ratio, that doesn't automatically make > a box filter the best or best looking filter. Pixels are not little > squares That's exactly what pixels are, in every camera I've ever heard of. The light is projected on to the focal plane at "infinite" resolution (ignoring the lense, arpeture, etc), and the CCD integrates the amount of light falling on a bunch of little squares. IOW, the CCD is precisely a box filter. At exact integer ratios is pretty much exactly what using the same sized CCD chip with fewer (ie larger) pixels would do. Of course, this isn't a real image, but box filtering is quite physically accurate for integer ratios or large non-integer ratios. It can produce stair-stepping, but then again, so can a real camera. -Ed -- (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.)(http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~er258) /d{def}def/f{/Times s selectfont}d/s{11}d/r{roll}d f 2/m{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{ 1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 12 d f pop 235 420 translate 0 0 moveto 1 2 scale show showpage > That's exactly what pixels are, in every camera I've ever heard of. > The light is projected on to the focal plane at "infinite" resolution > (ignoring the lense, arpeture, etc), and the CCD integrates the amount > of light falling on a bunch of little squares. IOW, the CCD is > precisely a box filter. The corners deliver less signal, the lens has spherical aberration and with bayer pattern CCDs you will usually have a diffuser in the optical path as well. As a system the pixel from most cameras won't have an image plane footprint very close to a box. > Of course, this isn't a real image, but box filtering is quite > physically accurate for integer ratios or large non-integer ratios. It's mostly physically accurate if your aim is to reproduce the same effect as that of a Foveon camera without anti-aliasing filter. > It can produce stair-stepping, but then again, so can a real camera. I'd call that a bad camera, not something to strive to reproduce in your algorithms. Marco > > That's exactly what pixels are, in every camera I've ever heard of. > > The light is projected on to the focal plane at "infinite" resolution [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > path as well. As a system the pixel from most cameras won't have an > image plane footprint very close to a box. I don't follow. All you have listed (vignetting, distortion, filtering, etc) happens before the CCD does anything. The result of all that is light projected on the image plane. The CCD then essentially box-filters whatever makes it through the lens and filtering system. If you replaced your CCD with one the same size, but with 1/4 of the pixels, you would get a pretty similar effect by box filtering and subsampling the original image. > > Of course, this isn't a real image, but box filtering is quite > > physically accurate for integer ratios or large non-integer ratios. > > It's mostly physically accurate if your aim is to reproduce the same > effect as that of a Foveon camera without anti-aliasing filter. Sure, you could throw away 2/3 of the colour bits in each pixel to emulate a bayer pattern if you wanted. > > It can produce stair-stepping, but then again, so can a real camera. > > I'd call that a bad camera, not something to strive to reproduce in your > algorithms. You can AA filter with a bit of blurring if you wish. But I still stand by my point that CCDs area-sample whatever falls on to them. This is equivalent to box filtering and point sampling. -Ed > If you replaced your CCD with one the same size, but with 1/4 of the > pixels, you would get a pretty similar effect by box filtering and > subsampling the original image. Indeed, but since the spread of the anti-alising filter (ie. diffuser) would no longer be in the same ratio to the size of the active area of the CCD you would get an aliased image. It's as wrong to do it this way in the camera as doing it inside a program. It's the anti-aliasing filter more than the actual CCD which determines the PSF with bayer pattern cameras. It's not exactly a gaussian, but it's far from a box. Marco >> Or try the "Lanczos" algorithm >Since the downsize is an exact integer (factor of 8) >I'm not sure Lanczos (or anything "better" than bilinear) >would help. The fact that the downsize ratio is an integer factor means it's easy to use a box filter for the downsizing and get "not bad" results. That doesn't mean Lanczos would not be better yet. A box filter still produces a fair amount of aliasing due to letting through input image frequency components that are above the Nyquist limit for the output resolution. Lanczos is better at attenuating these frequencies and suffers less aliasing artifacts. At the same time, it's better at retaining frequencies just below Nyquist that a box filter attenuates more than necessary. Now, a reasonable-sized Lanczos downsampling filter will cost you more time than a box filter - but it should be small compared to the original render time. Dave On Apr 28, 11:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello ! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sincerely, > Lee Interesting problem you got there. Perhaps you could speed up the rendering time by getting some fancy video card that is powered by super-duper ultra fast GPU ?? Which GPU the best? Hmmm......... > On Apr 28, 11:39 pm, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: <edited for brevity> > > I have experimented with many different graphic / photo softwares in > > the shrinking process, all of them give me the same "blurring" effect. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Which GPU the best? Hmmm......... Hello, No matter; the video card, itself, is simply a display device. Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> | Hello ! | | I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of | stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put | them online, they become blurred !! | 2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking | operation? anything with the right algorithm, and the algoriothm makes all the difference ..and downsizing is quite, quite different from upsizing! a basic primer on algorithm for resizing can be found here: (grr.. the web site's gone!) http://web.archive.org/web/20060409125805/http://www.interpolatethis.com/int erp.html and some comparisons http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-resize-for-web.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enlargement.htm > | Hello ! > | [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-resize-for-web.htm > http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enlargement.htm A question for the OP: how many other programs are loaded into your machine, taking up memory and cycles and competing with your graphics program? If you don't know, press CTRL-ALT-DEL to bring up Windows Task Manager and click on Applications, the Processes, then Performance. You might be forcing your graphics program to plod through knee-deep mud to do its job. Allen >snip > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Thank you all in advance !!! IrfanView gives you a choice of 5 filters when resizing. Try each of these until you get the desired results. http://www.irfanview.com regards Dud >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> to >> 1024X768 size graphic without losing the interesting details? Render the image to the size you want it in the first place. Then choose your JPEG compression parameters and chroma subsampling carefully and wisely to get the best size vs quality tradeoff. Several packages allow you to see the size and preview artefacts against the original. Before any meaningful answer about downsampling is possible you are going to have to answer the question "what do I mean by an interesting detail". >> 2. Which software do you recommend to carry out the shrinking >> operation? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > until you get the desired results. > http://www.irfanview.com Downsampling by a factor of 8 in each linear dimension will necessarily have a pretty severe effect on the maximum spatial frequency of the original image that can be retained. There is no free lunch. Regards, Martin Brown ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Apr 29, 12:39 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello ! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sincerely, > Lee Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before and after images showing the problem areas. You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words." > Instead of excess verbosity, you should post links to crops of before >and after images showing the problem areas. ZING! Sorry for this late reply. 3 example online: A. www.PenangA1.com/png/1K.PNG B. www.PenangA1.com/png/4K.PNG C. www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen produced just a few days ago. All three pictures were taken by the same screen capture program. If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP format. In Picture C you can see patches of green leaves distinctly, arising from the brown wall. Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are still separated from the brown wall. However, if you look at Picture A ... the patches of green leaves kinda melt into the brown wall behind it. Picture A was from a fragment of a 1024 X 768 picture (JPG format) that I shrunk from the original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, with the "Lanczos" option. The most important thing is that comparing Picture A with Picture B ... as you can see, even if Picture A and Picture B were obtained from pictures with the same dimension ( 1024 X 768 ), albeit different pictures, the green leaf patches of Picture B can still be clearly seen, while Picture A, the green leaves and brown wall are all mixed up. Any comment ?? > On Apr 29, 12:39�am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hello ! [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth > a thousand words." On May 1, 8:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > Sorry for this late reply. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > C.www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG Picture C should be www.PenangA1.com/png/ORI.PNG > The three examples above are fragments of a drawing that terragen > produced just a few days ago. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > You (plural) are not entitled to ignore the adage, "A picture is worth > > a thousand words." If you prefer this, http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosUnExpandedKernel.png , to this, http://www.general-cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKernel.png , then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel. Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for reductions because such expansion automatically provides antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images. > On May 1, 8:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Incidentally, for reciprocal odd integer scale factors, reduction using an unexpanded kernel is just plain decimation and the kind of interpolation kernel doesn't matter. > If you prefer this, > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thank you for the info. Would anyone kindly tell me which software provides the choice of "expanded" and "unexpanded" kernels of the Lanczos routine? As I am not a pro in this, while I do own (LEGAL) copies of several commercial software, I do not recall, photoshop, for instant, offer the "expanded" and the "unexpanded" kernel versions of Lanczos. Thank you again !!! > If you prefer this, > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - pg <penang@catholic.org> wrote in news:654686df-9016-407f-8ec2-5454c18e59e7@w1g2000prd.googlegroups .com: >> If you prefer this, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> http://www.general- cathexis.com/images/ORI_0.125X_LanczosExpandedKern... >> , then I suggest that you use an unexpanded interpolation kernel. >> >> Typically, commercial softwares expand the interpolation kernel for >> reductions because such expansion automatically provides >> antialiasing. SAR Image Processor gives the option of not expanding >> the kernel. This is undesirable for natural images. > Thank you for the info. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thank you again !!! Appreciate bottom posting. Adding: adobe.photoshop.windows alt.graphics.photoshop pg <penang@catholic.org> wrote in news:654686df-9016-407f-8ec2-5454c18e59e7@w1g2000prd.googlegroups .com: > Thank you for the info. You are a spammer: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=d&hl=en&as_ep q=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=penang%40catho lic.org&lr=lang_en&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=19 81&as_maxd=2&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2008&safe=off I already told you. Read again and Google for where to buy or get free demo. > Thank you for the info. > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Sorry for this late reply. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > C. www.PenangA2.com/png/ORI.PNG All three time out from here long before they download. > If you take a look at Picture C (ori.png), it's from the original > drawing ( resolution: 4096 X 3072 ), with file size of 37MB, in BMP [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > original 37 MB BMP drawing. When I shrunk it, I use 100% JPG quality, > with the "Lanczos" option. > Any comment ?? Which JPEG encoder did you use? And more critically what chroma subsampling - the default used for photographs does tend to compromise line art images. If you override the chroma subsampling to save YCrCb with 1,1,1 ratio then you may get better fidelity (although a larger filesize). Fundamentally you cannot get around the fact that when the image is downsampled the new image pixels get bigger and contain colours that are some weighted average of the original pixels. Regards, Martin Brown ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On May 1, 9:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > Sorry for this late reply. > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem. > On May 1, 9:12 am, hsyq...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post > small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem. All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !!! >Apparently the links are broken. Also, please, don't post BMP, post >small JPEG 100% crops of a problem area because I use a dial up modem. and >All are PNG files. Yes, the links are damn broken !! Why don't you idiots crop the crap? > Picture B represents a screenshot fragment of the 37MB drawing as my > desktop wallpaper (1024 X 768). As you can see from Picture B, > although much smaller than Picture C, the patches of green leaves are > still separated from the brown wall. It's hideous pixelated crap is what it is. If that is what you prefer just google for a program which lets you use point sampling or nearest neighbor sampling for resizing ... it will come out looking fugly like that. Marco > It's hideous pixelated crap is what it is. Yes. It's almost as bad as a medical image. > Hello ! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sincerely, > Lee are you setting to bicubic sharper?? I heard this is a better option to tick for sizing down what if your original is not jpeg (compressed) but instead saved as tiff uncompressed? then you are not compressing an already compressed format are you choosing high or maximum for quality of the downsized jpg? In article <52088436-f3ae-42a8-862f-cb283c8c517c@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > I do computer graphics as a hobby, and have produced quite a number of > stunning graphics. Often time though, when I shrink the graphic to put > them online, they become blurred !! Well, of course! What did you expect? If you resize an image to make it smaller, you remove pixels. When you remove pixels, you remove detail. On top of that, if you save as JPEG, you remove even more detail. JPEG compression is "lossy." It was invented for situations where file size is critical and image quality is not important. It makes files smaller by discarding image detail. SignaturePhotography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html > In article > <52088436-f3ae-42a8-862f-cb283c8c517c@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is critical and image quality is not important. It makes files smaller > by discarding image detail. On rereading the OP's post, I think the (interesting) discussion on sampling algorithms is besides the point. The key phrase (I think) is: > However, I found that when I do that, many interesting minute details > that were in the 8K X 6K pictures (even when I shrink fit it to my > 1024X768 desktop as wallpaper) are GONE. I think this implies that simply setting the "big image" as desktop gives results the OP finds acceptable, which I imagine involves pretty crude down sampling. Which leaves JPEG artifacts as the culprit. BugBear |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.