Automator - Changing JPEG Compression has no effect

I have an application using Render PDF Pages as Images, using JPEG compression, but no matter what I change the Compression setting to, the image is always the same size. Bug or something else?

and Oh Surprise! the background music is louder than what it should be. Its clip volume is set to 20% >and the Voiceover track's is set to 200%; as it was before.. but the music is so loud that we can't hear >the Voiceover track anymore.
This could happen if ducking is set on the music track. Ducking defines the music track as 100% and works everything else out from there. Ducking will diminish every other track. If you had ducking set to 25%, and volume of voiceover 200%, the music track would need to be 800% of the voiceover track.
My recommendation, turn ducking totally off. And use it only on short clips or short audio clips. If you have any long clips or music tracks, use the volume slider to set the volume.

Similar Messages

Changing default jpeg compression for Web Gallery files

I have created several web galleries from both Raw and Jpeg files with Iphoto '08 that suffer from serious jpeg compression artifacts. I haven't found any way to change the compression amount to reduce the artifacts. Is there actually a way?

papasteveo:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. There is no way in iPhoto for the user to manage the jpg compression of the web gallery photos. If the option for visitors to download the photos is selected the copy that's uploaded is compressed approximately equivalent to an Photoshop quality setting of 8 or 9 out of 12. The pixel dimensions are the same as the original unless the max dimension in the original exceeds 3054. The the file is resized to 3054 max dimension.
If the gallery is just for viewing the image is resized to 800 x 600 with additional compression.
You could manually replace the file with one that you've prepared but it would be very tedious as each file has it's own folder and the file name is changed to web.jpg (viewing only) or large.jpg (download). You would have to rename each file to be uploaded to the new name and make sure it's placed in the correct folder.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Remote content bar does not appear for some emails with images specifically daily Twitter updates. Changing options to allow all remote content has no effect

The broken image symbol appears in place of the images but associated web links do work ok.
Changing options to allow all remote content has no effect. Senders' addresses are in my address book and on the exceptions list.
Some emails (from other sources) load perfectly. Using Kaspersky Internet Security 2015 on Windows 8.1. Thunderbird 31.4.0
Any help appreciated.

You only need to post a URL to your web site. We can see your code in Browser.
So, your page looks OK to me in Firefox, but when I tried to check it in IE, it choked my browser and closed it.
You have quite a few code validation errors - no document type declaration, etc... Start by fixing these reported errors.
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu%2F
Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
Web | Graphics | Print | Media Specialists
www.alt-web.com/
www.twitter.com/altweb
www.alt-web.blogspot.com

Changing bounds origin of UIView has no effect

I try to pan/scroll a big image(500x500) in a small frame (200,200) like in Google Maps. Changing bounds origin of UIImageView has no effect. The same part of image is displayed by the view.
IBOutlet UIImageView *image;
-(void)touchesEnded:(NSSet*)touches withEvent:(UIEvent*)event
CGRect bounds=[image bounds];
bounds.origin.x=bounds.origin.x+10;
bounds.origin.y=bounds.origin.y+10;
[image setBounds:bounds];
Does anyone have any idea what is wrong?

Ok, I found out what's wrong.
To "pan" an image you have to change bounds origin of PARENT view.
- (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(UIApplication *)application {
CGRect viewRect = CGRectMake(50, 50, 100, 100);
UIView* myView = [self createView:viewRect withColor:[UIColor redColor]];
UIView* childView = [self createView:CGRectMake(0, 0, 50, 50) withColor:[UIColor blueColor]];
[myView addSubview:childView];
[window addSubview:myView];
myView.clipsToBounds=TRUE;
myView.bounds=CGRectMake(45, 45, 100, 100);
[myView release];
[childView release];
[window makeKeyAndVisible];
-(UIView*) createView:(CGRect)viewRect withColor:(UIColor*)color
UIView* myView = [[UIView alloc] initWithFrame:viewRect];
myView.backgroundColor=color;
return myView;
}

Wrong Channels Being Mapped for 5.1 - Changing Has No Effect.

I just setup a new edit suite using a Blackmagic Decklink Extreme 3D Card, running on a PC with Windows 7.
Initially my 5.1 channel mapping required altering in Premier to get the correct output to the correct speakers but once sorted all worked great.... until today! For some reason no matter what I do some of the channels are now mixed up, and changing the mapping preferences has no effect. I am getting the Centre channel coming from the Rear Right and Rear Left is coming out of the Sub! I have my preferences set to output from the BlackMagic Audio Device, but even swapping left and right channels has no effect.
If I flick over to Audition and map the channels for a 5.1 mix it works fine and has the correct output which I guess rules out a problem with the DeckLink. This is REALLY frustrating me, any suggestions or advice on what could be the issue with premier would be greatly appreciated!

Moderator advice: Please read the announcement(s) at the top of the forum listings and the FAQ linked from every page. They are there for a purpose.
Then edit your post and format the code and CSS correctly.
db

Change of Min Pool Size has no effect?

Hi, we are still using odp 9.2.0.4 on windows server 2003 webserver and oracle database 9i on Sun solaris. Recently we discovered a problem using Min Pool Size = 1, it seems that if new connections are required we sometimes get a connection timeout. So we decided to set Min Pool Size = 30, and on the testserver this works fine. In the odp tracefile (tracelevel=2) you see the 30 connections building up immediately. But on the production server we see no difference, it looks like the (new installed, application pool reset) application still uses the Min Pool Size = 1 setting.
The connection string is build up in application code. On the testserver it was sufficient to stop and start the website and its application pool, on the production server this has no effect.
Does anyone have an idea what the problem is??? We also tried restarting the IIS server, that did not help either. In production there are more applications using ODP.
Regards, Paul.

What problem are you trying to solve at this point? Simply "why is odp not tracing?" The only suggestions I really have there are
1) make sure you restart the app after enabling tracing parameters
2) make sure the directory you've set tracing to is open as far as permissions
3) make sure you've set tracing in the right registry setting if you have multiple versions of ODP installed
4) if you're trying to write to c:\ root, try creating and pointing to a different (c:\odptrace for example) directory instead.
Hope it helps,
Greg

LR JPEG compression vs. Photoshop JPEG compression

I haven't found any documentation of the meaning of the 0 - 100% JPEG compression value in LR's (v1 or v2) Export File window. And the default value of 100% is overkill and results in huge files. At least I'm familiar with the Photoshop's 0-12 JPEG quality scale with associated quality names: Low, Medium, High, and Maximum.
Via trial and error, I have found that LR has the same 13 quality levels as Photoshop and gives the same results, they are just mapped on a 0 - 100% scale. This also means that changing a few percent may not make any change at all, since a quality change only happens about every 7 percent.
For those who might find it useful, here is a table of the mappings:
The first column is the Photoshop compression number and name; the second column in the range of Lightroom percentages that will give the same results.
0-Low 0-7%
1-Low 8-15%
2-Low 16-23%
3-Low 24-30%
4-Low 31-38%
5-Med 39-46%
6-Med 47-53%
7-Med 54-61%
8-High 62-69%
9-High 70-76%
10-Max 77-84%
11-Max 85-91%
12-Max 92-100%

I looked at this again using PS's 'Baseline Standard' JPEG format option instead of 'Baseline Optimized. LR does not provide the format options Standard, Optimized, and Progressive, but appears to use 'Baseline Standard.' The equivalent compression level LR file size is within 16KB of PS's file size, which is probably due to slight differences in in the file metadata.
This pretty much confirms LR and PS use the same 'Baseline Standard' JPEG compression algorithms. The PS level 7 reduced quality is also seen at LR's level 54-61 JPEG Quality setting. Jeffrey Friedel mentions this in his analysis of LR's JPEG Quality settings and a reply from Brian Tao:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
Jeffrey Friedel's comment:
One thing I find interesting (but don't understand) is that in the first example, the difference in file size between the 47〜53 quality and 54〜61 quality is considerable (49k to 66k bytes), while in the second example, the the same two levels of quality produces essentially the same file size. There seems to be some kind of switch in compression algorithm once Lightroom is at a quality setting of 54 or above that puts the emphasis on encoding the easily-discernible smooth gradients of the sunset example, and if they are lacking in the image, as with the reed-window-shade example, the attempt at extra quality fails, and the file size does not increase. That's my guess, but it's just a guess.
Brian Tao's Reply:
This is due to the downsampling (basically, a reduction in resolution) of one or more of the image channels before passing it to the actual compression routine. Human vision is much more sensitive to changes in luminance (brightness) than chrominance (colour). JPEG takes advantage of this by reducing the amount of colour information stored in the image in order to achieve higher compression ratios. Because it is colour and not brightness that is sacrificed, this is called “chroma subsampling”. Look up that term in Wikipedia for a far better and more detailed description than I can provide here.
In a nutshell, Adobe products will use either a 4:4:4 subsampling (which is no subsampling at all, and thus full resolution) or 4:2:0 subsampling (both red and blue channels are reduced to one-quarter resolution before compression). There is no switch to specify the amount of subsampling to use. In Photoshop, the change from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 happens between quality 6 and 7. In Photoshop’s Save For Web, it happens between quality 50 and 51. In Lightroom, you already noticed that something unexpected happens between 47-53 quality and 54-61 quality. Guess what levels those correspond to in Photoshop? 6 and 7… exactly as expected.
You can very easily demonstrate this by creating a worst-case scenario of JPEG chroma subsampling. Create a small image in Photoshop with a pure blue (RGB = 0,0,255) background. Now type in some pure red text (RGB = 255,0,0). For maximum effect, turn off anti-aliasing, so each pixel is either full on red or full on blue. Zoom in to 500% or so for a clear view of the pixels. Now save the image as a JPEG. With the JPEG quality dialog visible, you will see a real-time preview of the effects of JPEG compression. Start at 12, and work your way down to 0, one step at a time. Watch what happens when you go from 7 to 6. You can do the same with Save For Web and with Lightroom to confirm where they switch from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0.
The file size discrepancy is more noticeable in the sunset shot because most of the information (relatively speaking) is needed to encode the gradual change in chrominance values. There is virtually no luminance detail to worry about, except around the silhouette of the bird. But in the photo of the reed window shades, the fine detail and texture and lack of colour result in practically no difference going from 4:4:4 and 4:2:0.
Because of this hidden (and inaccessble) switch, I have been recommending that to be safe, one should never go below quality 7 in Photoshop, or 51 in Save For Web. In Lightroom, this corresponds to quality 54.
Hope this helps.

Large .jpeg compression/artifacts?

I'm struggling with Muse's jpg compression, which I can't seem to bypass. I'm uploading very large images (2560px wide) for full-screen slideshows which have been optimized for the web in Photoshop. These images have large light backgrounds and hence Muse's jpg compression produces noticeably artifacted areas. I want to make sure it is indeed Muse that's the problem, and not Chrome. I'm previewing these locally. Thanks.

First, I have to say the delta between the screenshots is extremely small. I've had multiple people drop into my office for other reasons and none could see differences without me pointing them out using a pixel magnifying tool.
That said, here are some thoughts regarding this specific case.
Given this appears to be a photograph of black and white line art, it's a very problematic case for JPEG compression. To get a high quality result for this specific use case you'd want to start with a Camera RAW image from the camera (to avoid the camera introducing JPEG compression artifacts) and then go directly to a lossless image format such as PNG or GIF, rather than JPEG. For this specific subject matter going from Camera RAW directly to PNG/GIF would provide the best result, but at the cost of page load speed since the PNG/GIF image will likely be several times larger than a JPEG.
I expect what's occurred in this case is that the original image was a JPEG from a camera that was resized smaller and then re-encoded as JPEG.
The encoding as JPEG in the camera would introduce some artifacts but due to the very high resolution image the artifacts would be very small. Then the image was resized smaller. Resizing alters the image by using one of any number of algorithms to combine/average a set of pixels into a single pixel. The most common high quality approach is bicubic resampling. When resizing smaller this has the side effect of softening any hard edges within an image resulting in a final image that's sometimes considered ever so slightly blurry or "softer" than the original. I see this in the format.com example, in that it looks every so slightly soft or blurry compared to the PS and Muse examples. The algorithm available in PS and used by Muse when resizing smaller is bicubic sharper. This approach combines bicubic resampling with a very small amount of sharpening to counteract the blurring/softening effect of the resizing. For the specific subject matter in your image and the JPEG artifacts that were likely introduced before the image was resized, the sharping results in making the edges of the JPEG artifacts more noticeable (along making all the edges in the image crisper).
Without the URL for the webpage and the original image file (and probably the .muse file), I can only speculate on exactly what's being generated and why, but hopefully the above information is helpful.

Jpeg compression for tiff image (nt gettin a view of jpeg compressd pages)

Hi All,
I have a problem of jpeg compression inside a tiff file. When I convert no. of pages in a multi-page tiff file I m not getting a view of jpeg compressed pages. I convert black and white as well as gray scale jpeg images inside the tiff file. I used Compression Group4 for black and white image and JPEG compression for gray scale image. Also set the dpi of each page. But most of the viewer doesnt support my jpeg compressed pages. When I set the quality of jpeg images to 0.1f that time I m getting a view of particular images for some image viewer.
My requirement is to show the jpeg compressed image inside the IMAGING PREVIEW 2.5 VERSION. But it doesnt support for my output tiff. As well as cant get properties of that page inside the Fax viewer except Resolution 200x200 dpi.
     If anybody has any idea to compressed jpeg image inside the tiff file, please tell me how I can compress the gray scale image using jpeg compression.
Thank you in advance
Dipak

Hi Maxideon,
Thank u 4 ur immediate reply. But my requirement is, to show d tiff file only in IMAGING PREVIEW 2.5 VERSION. I tried lots but didnt manage to get a view of JPEG compressed page. I think somewhere I m doin wrong. Somewhere I wrote wrong code, cause d properties of jpeg compressd images also not getting in Fax Viewer except DPI. I change the BaselineTIFF Tags of JPEG compressed image, but cant manage output yet. I think d problem create at d time of metadata writing. My problem is tht, tiff created using sum other soft. is suppported by IMAGING PREVIEW 2.5 VERSION, y nt mine?
Here is my code for BaselineTIFFTagSet:
if(isBinaryImage) {
             // resolution unit
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(296), 2));
             // bit per sample
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(258), 1));
             // compression
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(259), 4));
             // rows per strip
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(278), bImageImage.getHeight()));
        } else {
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(296), 2));
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(258), 8));
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(259), 7));
             // thresholding
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(263), 3));
             rootTiffIFD.addTIFFField(new TIFFField(base.getTag(278), bImageImage.getHeight()));
        }     If u have any idea 4 write a metadata of jpeg page wid jpeg compression, can u plz suggest me hw to write a metadata 4 jpeg image? Which Baseline Tags r needed to set d jpeg compression?
Thank you
-dipak

"convert colors" causes jpeg compression?

I recently had to re-install Acrobat, and since doing so whenever I run my preflight profile which is set to convert spot colors to cmyk, it's also apparently increasing the jpeg compression at the same time. Everything seems to be gaining bad jpeg artifacts after the color conversion (even when the colors being converted have nothing to do with the images).
It may be unrelated, but it also seems to be creating all sorts of ICC profile non-cmyk colors in the process. I.e., before "convert to cmyk for digital printing" I run a preflight that simply checks for non-cmyk colors. This profile warns me that there is a Pantone color in the ad. I check the separation preview and find only one or two things with Pantone colors. I then run the convert fix. The Pantone colors go away, but now there are sometimes dozens of items that are showing up as ICC profile colors, and this seems unfixable. I can't create a profile to convert them.
What's going on? Are there settings somewhere that can select the degree of (or lack of) jpeg compression? Why is it compressing the file at all? I have no such setting selected in the preflight profile. I tried creating a profile that does absolutely nothing at all but convert to cmyk, and it's still causing these problems.
This is using Acrobat 8. It's the same version, same disks, we used before, but these problems are new. I may have a setting wrong somewhere.

You are not making sense, and your methodology is fundamentally flawed.
Hitting Command+S without editing the file is NOT "saving". It's not doing anything at all. The program just idles.
You can verify this by observing that the file's modification date does not change.
Even your limited but flawed methodology will show the degradation if you change even a single pixel before hitting Command+S. Then you will be degrading the image. Just make a one-pixel change, for instance with the pencil tool, then save. That is the same as doing a Save As.
Note that in your original query you were indeed changing a file by converting it to a different color space. THAT is a change.
Independently from the above, your methodology of comparing two layers blended in Difference mode has the inherent limitation of the monitor's performance in displaying the shadows. Your monitor, no matter how high-end, will NOT show you a difference between a 0,0,0 pixel (R,G,B,) and 0,0,1 or 1,0,0 or 1,0,1 for instance. SAme goes for 1,0,2 etc., until you reach the lower threshold of your particular monitor.
There are two preferred methods of comparing two layers to see if they're identical.
Comparing allegedly identical images in Photoshop
The first one, championed by the late, lamented author and guru Bruce Fraser, is as follows [direct quote by copy and paste]:
A better way of comparing images with identical pixel dimensions is to use [Image menu >] Apply Image… > Subtract with an Offset of 128.
Difference only shows pixels that are lighter in the source than in the target (or maybe it's the other way around—I forget) where Subtract with Offset 128 shows differences in both directions.
Pixels that are identical in both images come in as RGB 128 gray, those that are different come in at a value that exactly reflects how different they are.
It also makes it much easier to spot subtle differences…
=== ===
The second one was suggested by someone in the Color Managament and Photoshop Windows forums, which follows:
(NOTE: only the methodology is of interest and pertinent, not the questionable context in which it has brought up and used.)
* 1) Open the two images to be compared in Photoshop
* 2) Move one image as a layer over the other one
* 3) select "Difference" as blending mode in the layers palette
* 4) now the whole image should appear seemingly black on the monitor
[So far this is the traditional, "time honored" method.]
* 5) select the magic wand tool with these settings: Tolerance: 0/ Anti-alias: no/ Contiguous: no/ Sample All Layers: yes
* 6) click somewhere into the formerly gray area
[This refers to an image of a Color-Checker type of card that had wide gray border around it. The test, therefore, requires a pure gray image in the image, something highly unlikely to change, in order for the magic wand to select all pure-black images (255,255,255). Such a border can easily be created around an image by increasing the canvas size and filling the newly created space with pure gray (128,128,128). ]
    Explanation: you just selected all completely black pixels (0,0,0) i.e. all pixels that are identical in both layers.
* 7) you should see "marching ants" forming rectangular patterns
* 8_) invert the selection (Shift Command I)
   Explanation: the selection now covers all the other pixels, i.e. all pixels which are different between both layers.
* 9) create a new empty layer and select it in the layers palette
* 10) set the foreground color to white
* 11) fill the selection with white (Alt+backspace on Windows, accordingly on Mac)
* 12) set the blending modes of all layers back to normal
    Explanation: you now see all identical pixels in their respective color and all different pixels in white.
This method is a lot more sensitive than the traditional one which stops at step #4 above.
Finally:
jfraze wrote:
Wow, the level of hostility is amazing on these adobe forums…
Only because people like you come in here itching for a fight, rather than to seek help. It's just the way you choose to react—and to intereact with others.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Widescreen setting in video - tv out has no effect

after a couple of hours of experimentation, i have concluded that the widescreen setting (on/off) in the tv out section of the video settings has no effect. i believe what it SHOULD do is adjust the signal to display properly on a widescreen (16x9) tv. i believe it does nothing. video displays stretched and squashed (photos too btw). this is after experimenting with the same itunes-purchased and non-itunes purchased videos on both my ipad and my iphone 3gs, using the same tv and the apple component av cable. the iphone works fine. the only way to get a semi-acceptable display on the tv with the ipad is to the set to tv to normal 4x3 display. (late model sony lcd hdtv). then you get thick black bars around the picture. with the iphone i can leave the tv display setting at it's regular "full" option and the picture fills the screen properly. i tried both sd and hd videos on the ipad. (sd only on the iphone obviously). does anyone else have this issue? is there a bug in the ipad software? is there a problem with MY ipad? will a software restore help?
Message was edited by: Michael Rosenberg

i tried a fair amount of stuff. here's 2 examples:
1) itunes store copy of an episode of the office in both hd and sd.
2) digital copy of the new star trek movie
so the first is 16x9 and the second is a widescreen movie 2.35-1.
both look fine when playing back off the iphone 3gs (sd copy of the office). both looked stretched horizontally and squashed vertically when playing off the ipad. note that everything looks fine on the ipad itself. it just messed up when connecting
the ipad to my tv. in all cases, the widescreen setting in the tv out section of the video panel on the ipad has NO effect.
i can change the screen settings ON THE TV to fix the distortion but then i end up with thick black bars on all 4 sides. and i don't need to do this with the iphone 3gs. i continue to believe something is wrong with the ipad (or MY ipad).

Is there any way to reduce the JPEG compression ap...

I'm wondering if there is any way to reduce the fierce amount of JPEG compression applied to photos taken with the 6220 classic? I'm 99.99% sure that there isn't, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I'm a professional graphic designer with 15 years experience, and as such understand the technicalities of digital imaging better than most.
What the general public fails to understand is that ever higher megapixelage doesn't automatically equate to ever higher quality images.
The 6220 classic has a 5MP camera, which is one of the reasons I bought it, along with the fact that it has a Xenon flash and a proper lens cover. Its imaging quality also generally gets very positive reviews online.
However, the 6220 classic takes far poorer photos than my 5 year old Olympus digital camera which only shoots 4MP. Why is this? Many reasons. The Olympus has a much larger imaging chip, onto which the image is recorded (physical size as opposed to pixel dimensions), a far superior lens (physical size & quality of materials), optical (not digital) zoom, and the ability to set various levels of JPEG compression, from fierce (high compression, small files, low quality images) to none at all (no compression, large files, high quality TIFF-encoded images).
When I first used the camera on the 6220 classic (I've never owned a camera phone before) I was appalled at the miniscule file sizes. A 2592 x 1944 pixel image squashed into a few hundred kilobytes makes a mockery of having decent pixel dimensions in the first place, but then the average consumer neither cares about nor would notice the difference. They're not going to be examining & working on their images in Photoshop on a 30" Apple Cinema Display.
Is fierce JPEG compression (and an inability to alter it) the norm with camera phones, or do other camera phones (perhaps from other manufacturers) allow greater latitude in how images are compressed?
Thanks.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Believe me, I was very aware that this was a phone with a camera attached, not a dedicated camera, before I bought it. I went into this with my eyes open. I knew the lens, imaging chip, zoom, etc, would all be grossly inferior, but given all of this, surely the phone manufacturers should help to compensate for this by adding a few lines of code to the software to reduce (or ideally remove) the JPEG compression, or at least give the user the option to do so if they want? The fierce compression just makes images obtained with compromised hardware even worse than they would have been otherwise.
It adds insult to injury and is totally unnecessary, especially given that the memory card in the 6200 classic is 1GB but the one in my Olympus is only 128 MB! It's not as if lack of storage space is an issue! On the Olympus I can only take about 8 pictures without compression (although I could obviously buy a much larger memory card). On the 6220 classic, given the ridiculous amount of compression, there's room for over 1200 photos! It would be far better to let 70 uncompressed images be stored than 1200 compressed ones. Does anyone seriously need to take over a thousand photos on a camera phone without having access to a computer to offload them? I doubt it.
Also, compressing the images requires processing power, which equals time. If they were saved uncompressed, the recovery time between shots would be reduced, although obviously writing the larger files to memory may offset this somewhat.
Just to give people an idea, an uncompressed 8-bit RGB TIFF with pixel dimensions of 2592 x 1944 takes up approximately 14.5 MB of space. (The exact number of bytes varies slightly depending on the header information stored with the file). The 3 photos I've taken so far with the 6220 classic (and that I've decided to actually keep) have files sizes of 623, 676 & 818 KB respectively. An average of these 3 sizes is 706 KB. 706 KB is less than 5% the size of 14.5 MB, which means that, on average, the camera, after is records the 5038848 pixels in an image, throws over 95% of them away.
I'm deeply unimpressed.

ADF Faces 10.1.3.0.4 - two-digit-year-start has no effect?

Hi all,
I have problem with entering date with an af:selectInputDate control:
the user enters the date and on an onblur event, the adf field
automatically reformats it:
10.10.10 ->10.10.2010
10.10.60 ->10.10.1960
The user (customer) wants 2 things to change:
1. if the given two digit year <= actual year (06):
10.10.06 ->10.10.2006
otherwise
10.10.07 ->10.10.1907
2. by entering a date, adf have to be accept the date without dots too:
101006 ->10.10.2006
1.: I tried to set theconfig param: <two-digit-year-start>2006</two-digit-year-start> (or with an EL expression) in the adf-faces-config.xml but it has no effect.
Is it a totally wrong idea or is it a bug?
Any other idea?
2.: Is it possible to solve this problem with a built in control or converter? Or do i have to write my own converter?
Thanks for any help!

The exception is gone - I must have had something wrong in my classpath. However, I still see the warnings. Are those warnings expected when using ADF in conjunction with myfaces?

Show Details in pagetoolbar-options - property has no effect?

Hello all
When I set the property-value in the pageToolBar-iView for the Details it seems to have no effect:
When I save and preview the whole thing, the option "Details" is still available...
When I change the options for everything else (Reload, Add to Favourites, ...) it has immediate effect.
By the way - although I don't want it - I also can't remove the caption/title of the current view in the pageToolBar.
Any help or explanation is greatly appreciated.
Regards
Michael

Hi Vineeth
Thanks so far for your reply.
Of course, this could be due to some server-/proxy-side caching, although I doubt that in my case.
I already made the same settings on the productive-portal and experience the same behaviour there, which surprises me a little.
I'll simply wait about a week, maybe the problem will vanish by itself (rather I'll wait for the proxy or any other cache to un-cache it).
I'll post my experiences.
Regards
Michael

DHCP_TIMEOUT in /etc/conf.d/netcfg has no effect

I want to set DHCP_TIMEOUT to 30 for all netcfg profiles. On this page in wiki it is suggested to set the variable in /etc/conf.d/netcfg. But this has no effect. I tried 'NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg <arguments>' and the timeout was still 10.
How can I set DHCP_TIMEOUT for all profiles without editing every profile?

opt1mus wrote:Could you paste into this thread your /etc/conf.d/netcfg and the debug output. It's easier for people to help with troubleshooting when actual output is to hand.
Here it is (network names changed):
# cat /etc/conf.d/netcfg
# Enable these netcfg profiles at boot time.
# - prefix an entry with a '@' to background its startup
# - set to 'last' to restore the profiles running at the last shutdown
# - set to 'menu' to present a menu (requires the dialog package)
# Network profiles are found in /etc/network.d
NETWORKS=(network1 network2)
# Specify the name of your wired interface for net-auto-wired
WIRED_INTERFACE="eth0"
# Specify the name of your wireless interface for net-auto-wireless
WIRELESS_INTERFACE="wlan0"
# Array of profiles that may be started by net-auto-wireless.
# When not specified, all wireless profiles are considered.
#AUTO_PROFILES=("profile1" "profile2")
DHCP_TIMEOUT=30
# NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg network1
DEBUG: Loading profile network1
DEBUG: Configuring interface wlan0
:: network1 up [ BUSY ] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as:
DEBUG: Loading profile network1
DEBUG: Configuring interface wlan0
DEBUG: wireless_up start_wpa wlan0 /run/network/wpa.wlan0/wpa.conf nl80211,wext
Successfully initialized wpa_supplicant
DEBUG: wireless_up Configuration generated at /run/network/wpa.wlan0/wpa.conf
DEBUG: wireless_up wpa_reconfigure wlan0
DEBUG: wpa_cli -i wlan0 -p /run/wpa_supplicant reconfigure
DEBUG: wireless_up ifup
DEBUG: wireless_up wpa_check
DEBUG: Loading profile network1
DEBUG: Configuring interface wlan0
DEBUG: ethernet_up bring_interface up wlan0
DEBUG: ethernet_up dhcpcd -qL -t 10 wlan0
DEBUG:
> DHCP IP lease attempt failed.
DEBUG: Loading profile network1
DEBUG: Configuring interface wlan0
DEBUG: Loading profile network1
DEBUG: Configuring interface wlan0
DEBUG: ethernet_down bring_interface flush wlan0
DEBUG: wireless_down stop_wpa wlan0
DEBUG: wpa_cli -i wlan0 -p /run/wpa_supplicant terminate
DEBUG: profile_up connect failed

Automator - Changing JPEG Compression has no effect

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for