Jpeg compression problem

Using a recent Mac Mini, (Mavericks and Photoshop Elements 12) - when I save a jpg picture file the size is shown before I save - e.g. 200.8K, but if, after saving the file, I check its size with "get info" the same file shows as being 258K. So something is padding out the file size - is there any way to save the minimum file size ?
I assume the extra data is either color info. or exif data - can I strip this out, ( special software ?) and if so will it affect how the recipient sees the picture ?

Removing EXIF data will same letter storage but you can remove it by:
http://osxdaily.com/2012/12/05/how-to-remove-exif-data-from-images-quickly/
http://www.imactools.com/exifremover/
In many programs like iPhoto you can export a photos and select to compress the file to various degrees.

Similar Messages

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.

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

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.

Unwanted jpeg compression in Mail

I am having that unwanted compression problem. Jpegs of scanned documents get compressed beyond readability. I can compress the jpeg in Finder, but that is a pain to remember and do all the time.
Did anyone come up with a way to change a setting somewhere?
prbookpro

when you add an image to an outgoung message there should appear a small scroll "image size" button at the lower right corner of the message composition window. click on it and set to "actual size".

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

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

Error saving TIF image with JPEG compression (IndexColorModel)

Hi all,
i recently came upon the following error:
javax.imageio.IIOException: Metadata components != number of destination bands
     at com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg.JPEGImageWriter.checkSOFBands(JPEGImageWriter.java:1279)
     at com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg.JPEGImageWriter.writeOnThread(JPEGImageWriter.java:694)
     at com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg.JPEGImageWriter.write(JPEGImageWriter.java:339)
     at com.sun.media.imageioimpl.plugins.tiff.TIFFBaseJPEGCompressor.encode(TIFFBaseJPEGCompressor.java:489)
     at com.sun.media.imageioimpl.plugins.tiff.TIFFImageWriter.writeTile(TIFFImageWriter.java:1835)
     at com.sun.media.imageioimpl.plugins.tiff.TIFFImageWriter.write(TIFFImageWriter.java:2686)trying to save a tif file with jpeg compression. The code used is this:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
    String s = "c:/sample images/gray_bug/graybug.tif";
    BufferedImage bi = ImageIO.read(new File(s));
    File outFile = new File(s + "-out.tif");
    ImageWriter writer = (ImageWriter)ImageIO.getImageWritersByFormatName("TIF").next();
    ImageOutputStream ios = ImageIO.createImageOutputStream(outFile);
    ios.setByteOrder(ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN);
    writer.setOutput(ios);
    TIFFImageWriteParam writeParam = new TIFFImageWriteParam(Locale.ENGLISH);
    writeParam.setCompressionMode(ImageWriteParam.MODE_EXPLICIT);
    writeParam.setCompressionType("JPEG");
    writeParam.setCompressionQuality(1f);
    IIOImage iioImage = new IIOImage(bi, null, null);
    writer.write(null, iioImage, writeParam);
    writer.reset();
    writer.dispose();
    ios.flush();
    ios.close();
}The test image that creates the problem can be found here:
http://s11.postimage.org/7wl195w8z/graybug.png
Any ideas what might be wrong?
I am using imageio 1.2-pre-dr-b04 and JDK 1.6.
TIA,
Costas

I can't help you but here's an exercise for you. When you get an exception you can't explain yourself, try posting it in Google. With a catch: remove anything from the error message that is specific to you like a classname or a specific value.
In this case there is nothing specific in the error message so try a search for "javax.imageio.IIOException: Metadata components != number of destination bands". One thing is for sure: you're not the first to run into this error.

Flatten transparency without lossy JPEG compression

Acrobat is using lossy JPEG compression (quality: medium) on some images after transparent objects were flattened. Even if the images had a ZIP compression before, Acrobat will use a lossy JPEG compression. The result is a loss of quality. There are also differences in quality within a single image, cause some images are divided in parts with a ZIP compression and with a lossy JPEG compression.
Is there a workaround to use Acrobat's transparency flattening without JPEG compression? The problem appears in Acrobat 7, 8 and 9.

Hi Cropas!
As stated above my PDF export settings you can read that this option is set to OFF. <Create Tagged PDF: Off>.
Indd can not cope with this option for embedded PDF document indd?

"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

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.

N700 - Excessive Jpeg compression

The camera is actually pretty good, but the result is badly spoilt by way too excessive Jpeg compression.
There is no need for that these days. Memory is cheap. I have just put in a 32G MicroSD card, for about £25, and that is a Samsung one, not some no-name cheapo one. The phone is saving images to heavily compressed files and paying the price for that.
Nokia should make the quality (i.e. the compression level) configurable.
Apologies for the +1 change in the username; I managed to mess up my logins, and Nokia operates separate logins for the store and the forum and they seemingly cannot be the same.

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

DVCPRO HD Compression problem

Hello
I've got some great looking DVCPRO HD 720p 59.94 footage. I export it as is from FCP.
When I let DVD Studio Pro compress it to an SD DVD (NTSC 23.98 fps), it looks blocky and terrible.
I've seens some posts about this around, but can't seem to understand the solution...
Thanks
Alex

Well, can I burn a DVD to 59,94?
In compressor any setting I use looks terrible. I tried converting the DVCPRO HD footage to 10bit Uncompressed in case that was the problem (changing the size to 1280x720), but it didn't work either. I can up every single setting (including Frame Control) in compressor to best or highest bit rate, and my preview looks like bad jpeg compression...
Do you think the frame rate could be the issue?
Thanks
Alex

File Compression Problem

Hello all,
I'm having a strange file compression problem with CS5 on our new Mac Pro. We purchased the Mac Pro to scan and process images, but the JPEGs and GIFs we create from this computer are much larger than they should be when closed (e.g. images that should be compressed to 6KB are reading as 60KB, and the file size is often smaller when opened than closed). Furthermore, anytime we use these image files in other programs (e.g. Filemaker Pro) the inflated file size will carry over. What's even more puzzling is that the same files that are reading as 60KB on our Mac Pro will read correctly as 6KB from a PC. Similarly, if we embed these images -- that were created on the Mac Pro -- into Filemaker from a PC, the image file size is correct. We cannot use the compressed files we create on our Mac Pro because the inflated file size will be passed on to whatever application we use on the Mac Pro (except for Photoshop).
We have been processing images for years on a PC and haven't had any troubles with this. We were thinking for a while that the problem was with the Mac operating system, but after many calls with expert Apple advisers it seems like Photoshop for Mac has to be the issue. We have already tried reformatting and re-indexing the hard drive, and at this point there is nothing else that can be done from Apple's end. The last expert I spoke with at Apple said that it sounds like the way Photoshop for Mac compresses files and how Mac reads file sizes is very different from the way Photoshop for PC compresses files and how Windows reads file sizes. If he was correct, and there is no work-around, we'll have no other choice and will have to return our Mac.
Has anyone else experienced this before? The experts at Apple were thoroughly confused by the problem and so are we.
Thanks,
Jenny

This has nothing to do with compression.
Macintosh saves more metadata, and more previews than Windows - that's one part.
Macintosh shows the size of the file on disk, including wasted space due to the disk block size - that's another part. (look at the byte count, not the size in K or MB).
When you upload the files to a server, or use them in most programs, that extra metadata is lost and the file sizes should be identical.
I can't believe that your advisors spent any time on such a trivial issue...

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

Jpeg compression problem

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for