Best jpeg compression mode..?

When using PhotoShop's (CS2) "Save-for-Web", the popup window offers some options that 'help' doesn't explain well enough - for me.
Both "Optimized" and "Progressive" have cautions appended, which are, respectively: "however, some older browsers do not support this feature" and " not supported by some browsers".
What to do, what to do.? (accompanied by a wringing of hands).
Originally, I'd thought that "Progressive" would be the preferred; now I'm not sure of either, eh.
any help here appreciated.
ThanX

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

Similar Messages

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.

"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

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.

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.

What jpeg compression does image capture use to save an image

I am about to scan colour positive slides from many years ago, using image capture and a scanner (Epson 2450 photo). Can anyone tell me what jpeg compression is used when the scan is saved to disk? Further, is there any way to alter the quality of suh compression, from say, medium, to highest?

You might be able to find it when you export it from Image Capture.

N8: Missing JPEG compression settings and gallery ...

1) Where's the use of a fine 12 MP camera if a harsh JPEG compression algorith destroys almost all photos taken ?
PLEASE introduce a setting for adjusting the compression strength.
I know there are solutions available already - but these only work with flashing the phone.
2) After updating some social network software the button for opening the gallery (right after taking a photo) vanished - and now shows an icon for uploading the photo instead of opening the gallery. ARGH ! - Even deinstalling that update did not bring the gallery button back. I now curse myself (and Nokia) for installing that senseless update.
That gallery button was such a nice workaround for checking the quality of a photo taken:
That instant photo display after shooting does not allow zooming - so it's of no use because you cannot check the quality; without zooming in, you cannot see if a picture taken was out of focus or blurred by hands shaking.
So PLEASE: Restore the gallery button OR lets us zoom a photo taken right after shooting.
It's of no use instantly uploading a picture to social networks if you can't check if the quality is sufficient.

Hape: There are always people who like everything. There are even people who like getting slapped in the face. So this shouldn't be an excuse for every nonsense possible.
The problem: That new button is just useless because you wouldn't upload a picture prior to knowing if it really is of the quality needed: On the N8s small screen, even blurred or out-of-focus pictures look ok. You'll only see the differences after zooming in.
But you CAN'T zoom in using the quick view feature right after taking the photo - you need to open the picture taken using the gallery.
Of course you may open the gallery via the menu - but you need to scroll down for finding the right menu entry. Takes unnecessary time and is a source of error.
A QUICK review should be a QUICK review - you don't want to miss the next photo opportunity just because you waste your time fiddling with the menu entries just because Nokia destroyed a working system by introducing a button which is of no use if you cannot check the photo's quality prior to using it.
And again: Why doesn't deinstalling restore the previous state ? - As said: I deinstalled that senseless update - but that ugly button is still there.
So again:
PLEASE, Nokia: Remove that senseless button OR let us zoom photos in quick view.

Changing the compression mode..

So I have a slideshow I'd like to export to DVD. The pictures that are animated to get the ken burns effect. I watched it on an LCD tv on a dvd player and the interlaced fields were so prevelant that the movie was almost unwatchable. In FCE4, at 100% screen size, there is now visible interlacing. Why is it showing up when i burn it to a dvd? I'd like to not use the deinterlace filter to preserve quality, especially since it looks fine in FCE. Oh yea, and the actual video footage in the slide show is FINE!? So I was thinking I'd like to try changin hte compression mode and see if that works but i don't know how to do that. Also, if anyone else has any other suggestions that would be great as well. Thanks.

Can someone please help me out this is a big issue. I don't know why it would be fine in FCE and then horrible when I play it on a DVD or computer...

Some of Photo (JPEG)-compressed images by Flash Pro are not shown in AIR app (3.7/3.8)

Does anyone see this issue happening? In Flash Pro it's OK, but in AIR, it's broken.
https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=3558175
Problem Description:
Some JPEG-compressed images in swc produced by Flash Pro CS6 is not shown in AIR.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a fla with Flash Pro CS6
2. Put a png image in it and open the property of the image to make sure its compression option is Photo (JPEG)
3. Produce an swc out of the fla
4. Create an AIR app that shows the contents in the swc
Actual Result:
All images are shown
Expected Result:
Some of the images are not shown (nothing is shown where they are supposed to be)
Any Workarounds:
Use Lossless (PNG/GIF) for all images

i was able to get it to work from a suggestion in another thread: if you write a JSFL that goes through all your bitmaps and makes sure they do not uset he default compression of the document, but instead use custom compression (it can match the default however). this worked for me

Best mp4 compression possible for 50" TV

Hi,
I need to compressed my project (24fps, 1080p from FCP) to mp4 which will be run on a 50' TV via a computer (not sure what software but I was told it needs to be in mp4 format). If size isn't a factor, what's the best possible compression to get a very good quality on mp4 format? Should I take the mpeg-4 setting and modify the bit rate to HIGH VBR?
Any help appreciated.

The High VBR should do a decent job. Whether it's the best you can do will require some testing on your end.
There was a recent thread on working from the H.264 presets and simply changing the extension to MP4 after encoding the file. I'm not sure whether that would work or not, but you could try. It certainly would give you comprehensive control over your quality.
Alternatively, you could use MPEG Streamclip, which offers pretty good control but will definitely put your file in an MP4 wrapper.
Russ

How to find sql server backup was taken under compression mode

Hello,
How to find SQL server backup was taken under compression mode ? I have disabled the Compress Mode backup setting but I want to make sure the backup is taken without compression.
Is there a script for that?
Thanks
JK

I have disabled the Compress Mode backup
That is only a default setting, in backup command you can always overwrite it to a different value.
Olaf Helper
[ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

Backup problem in compress mode

Hi,
How will I take backup in compress mode by ufsdump command in DDS-4 . I had given as,
# ufsdump 0ucf /dev/rmt/0cn <device-name>
But it has come in normal mode only. Any one can tell the solution.
Thanks in advance,
sathish.

did you make any changes to /kernel/drv/st.conf to specifically define your tape device type there?
If so, please include -
Here are two possible docs for you to look at - the first is a dds-3 tape unit (12/24) and the second is the dds-4 tape unit/autoloader (20/40)
http://docs-pdf.sun.com/802-7791-11/802-7791-11.pdf
http://docs-pdf.sun.com/801-5401-11/801-5401-11.pdf
Both docs reference scsi id settings, but nothing on the device for hard switching compression on or off...
I'd double check the st.conf settings against what is listed in the doco.
hth

V25 JPEG Compression in PDF folio sucks....

Guys -
What happened to compression in v25 folios?
I've had two deisgners ask me this in the last week...and I noticed it myself. I don't think we are doing anything differently...
It seems that JPEG compression in PDF folios has been increased since prior releases of Folio Builder.
Pixelization is really noticeable even over JPEG folios set to high quality.
look at this screenshot...
The image on the left is a High Quality Print PDF exported straight from inDesign. The central image is the doc as a JPEG folio. The right image is the doc as a PDF folio.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74532153/dps.png
Any one else notice this? And/or is there a way to override the default compression settings for PDF folios?

Hi Javad -
This was not resolved.
I worked closely with Yasin at DPS Gold Support - and he could reproduce the problem but was unsure what or why it was happening.
My guess is that a decision was made by Adobe to increase default compression to reduce file size.
The knock against DPS is file bloat - both as it relates to file transmission and file storage.
I think this was how they attempted to address both issues.
There are no controls within inDesign or Folio Builder to override the default compression.
The only way around is to create a PNG or JPEG folio and lose vector artwork.
I'm hoping it may be addressed with V 26
Mike

Lower jpeg compression on masters

This might seem like an odd question but how can I resave masters with lower jpeg compression or even lower resolution to save disk space?
Please dont make this a thread lecturing the downsides of actually doing this I know what Im asking of

I'm fairly sure you're going to have to export at the compression you want and then re-import the files. I'd create a new library to import into to make it easier to remove the originals.

JPEG compression codec in C

Hi guys.. I am trying to write a JPEG compression code in C language. Does any of you have the code already?? Can you pls post it for me? Also, i am trying to compress an image and send it over wireless link. Can i use JPEG or should i use only JPWL??
thanks.

Your inquiry appears to have no relationship to Oracle Database Advanced Compression.
I would suggest you ask it in a forum where it is on-topic.

Best jpeg compression mode..?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for