Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > CSS tables - more confused

Reply
Thread Tools

CSS tables - more confused

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2005
> From: Spartanicus <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Bit surprised (but do understand) how the discussion has brought in the
>> element of upsizing which I almost never do, always I return to my big
>> source material and work down if I want bigger than I have prepared (and a
>> motivation for my advice to folk to start with as good as possible, I know
>> you think this a bit neurotic and wasteful

>
> I argued against your suggestion to habitually record or scan in much
> bigger dimensions than what is expected to be needed for the end image,
> thus a downsize scenario.


If you know what you are going to do and have good experience in these
matters, fine. I believe my advice is the safest for those who are less sure
of themselves and probably good advice for those who are too sure of
themselves. Now don't go and take this the wrong way, personally, please. I
emphasise different things to you and so far have no reason not to.

I took a look at the site you mentioned in another post -
http://nickyguides.digital-digest.co...vs-bicubic.htm

The reason that *both* versions of the reduction in fact look *not very good
at all* may be because the source was inadequate. It may be a deliberate
thing by the author to make a point? But why not a good sharp pic that is
better in one than in the other to make his point? I think because of the
following reason which in no way helps your case: the effect of the arguably
poorer bilinear algorithm is to fuzz things up a bit (reminding me of the
effect PS blur and Guassian filters. Used precisely to improve images with
faults in them. It involves a loss in sharpness).

The Paint Shop pro spiel might be a consumer safe thing they say to do for
the average punter. But I say start with good pics if you can and your rule
should be to preserve sharpness, bicubic is the way to go. Your argument
about starting with what you are likely to need is a risky strategy. Better
to have the bicubic as rule of thumb if you are in the business of dealing
with good pics and adopt other strategies for the minority of other cases.

Your :

>This experiment demonstrates that the rule of thumb is correct:
>http://nickyguides.digital-digest.co...vs-bicubic.htm


is not correct. It does not *demonstrate* this at all. You may still be
right but I am now seriously doubting it. (And, I am sorry to have to add
this, I am not doing this to be combative, I am doing it because my
reasoning about the complex background assumptions and my own eyes and
practice dictate it)


dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jim Scott
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2005
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:54:53 +1100, dorayme wrote:

>> From: Jim Scott <(E-Mail Removed)>

>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:12:48 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Jim Scott <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>
>>>>> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
>>>>> bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
>>>>> a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.
>>>>
>>>> Can you be more specific? All the photos are mine and I have most of the
>>>> originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet changed and
>>>> some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on webspace and there are
>>>> lots here.
>>>> --
>>>> Jim on Tyneside UK
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Jim, I missed your bit about scanning in my last post and just
>>> noticed! So maybe we need to look at your method of scanning. My remarks can
>>> be transposed for the scanning procedure: scan at the highest quality and go
>>> from there in a good photo editor.
>>>
>>> If you are not sure about what is not the best about your pics - and as I
>>> said, many are *very nice and acceptable* - perhaps look at Windfarm and
>>> look at around the props, the pole on the left; look at Anchors2 and over
>>> the bridge to the right of the windmill there... sort of watery aberrations,
>>> possibly the sign of over compression (the poor algorithm does it's best!).
>>> Yes, I know around the props look almost ok because it might be air
>>> disturbance! But it is a fault I think that can be seen in a few pics where
>>> there is not this "excuse"
>>>
>>> dorayme

>>
>> One of the problems is that photos like Wind Warm and the 1993 shipyard
>> series were all scans from 6.5" x 4.5" prints.
>> Most of them were worked on with Adobe Photoshop and "Seved for the Web"
>> --
>> Jim on Tyneside UK

>
>
> This should not be a problem that results in such marks. A good quality scan
> from a decent pic of that size will result in a good pic that would more
> than fill most screens (because the pixels on a screen are very much less
> than the equivalent dots bunched in a digital print of the same file. Plenty
> enough material to work with). Try not to use such commands as "save for the
> web" if you can help it - because you mostly don't know what is happening
> and therefore lose control and experience. Scan at a high resolution. Open
> in PS. In one or other order (I am awaiting feedback on a slight question on
> this), reduce the pic to a size you roughly want and compress choosing a
> number from 1 to 10 in JPG levels. Try 5 or 6 to begin. 4 might be ok. I
> suspect the faults I mentioned are due too much compression (lower numbers
> like 0,1,2). You can keep compressing a bit (don't go the other way though)
> and you can adjust the px dimensions down (again, don't go the other way)
> till you get a result you want. You will get experienced and not have to
> fiddle too much after a while...
>
> Good luck...
>
> dorayme


Thank you
Before you disappear can you recommend a scan resolution for my 6 x 4 film
prints?
--
Jim on Tyneside UK
Remove X to email me.
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Oli Filth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2005
dorayme wrote:
>>From: Oli Filth <(E-Mail Removed)>

> <SNIP>
> I can't do *best* visual tests on the screens in front of me right now but
> will later on a very big brand new one I own on another machine. The *quick*
> test I have just done on a good sharp regular photo taken with a digital
> camera of an outdoor scene results in no difference I can detect but more
> importantly for now: no difference in file size. To clarify:
>
> I jpgd at level 5, I resized and then saved as jpg at the same level as my
> first jpging. I got a file of 64,667K. I then went back to the original and
> resized first, jpgd at level 5 and saved. Again 64,667K. So if information
> loss is reflected in file size, this "third loss" is not happening? But I am
> not saying here that you have no case. I will look into it further.


File-size is a rough indicator of information content, but it doesn't
map precisely to JPEG quality. I just did a test on a photo-realistic
image (original image 1132x384, resized to 20%, JPEGged at "5"), and the
Compressed->Resized image file-size was actually *bigger* than the
Resized->Compressed image file-size, even though the total error was far
higher (when viewed via the difference method I described earlier), and
therefore had lost more image information.

>>JPEG is designed specifically for photo-realistic images, which a
>>continuous linear gradient most certainly isn't. When it comes to
>>measuring loss quantitively, the only useful way is a statistical
>>measure based on a sample set of real photographs. Typically this is
>>done by taking a photo, compressing it, calculating the difference, and
>>finding the RMS (root mean square) error and dividing it by the number
>>of pixels.
>>

> Will think more on this. In what you say may be the answer to my puzzle
> about file size. I did suppose that a gradient was an excellent model for
> most photographic pics. But maybe I am wrong. I was thinking it is just the
> thing gifs are bad at, they are bad at photos mostly too and I was supposing
> it was the feature of gradual tonal changes that are at the heart of so much
> photography that was being captured by my gradient


Actually, constant gradients *are* something JPEGs handle very well,
almost perfectly, in fact. This, strange as it seems, is a reason not to
use them as a test. If you are looking to observe and measure loss, then
it's best to test it with something that JPEG doesn't handle so well, so
that there's more of an error signal to observe. A photo with a lot of
sharp edges would be a good example.

If you're interested in the technical reason, it's because (broadly
speaking) JPEG compression works by paying less attention to
high-frequency parts of the image. Edges have lots of high-frequency
information, which is consequently removed during compression. So on
reproduction, the edge looks blurred (typically you'll see "ringing" on
highly-compressed images with lines). A smooth gradient has little
high-frequency content, and hence gets through the compression
relatively unscathed.


--
Oli
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2005
> From: Jim Scott <(E-Mail Removed)>


>> ...A good quality scan
>> from a decent pic of that size will result in a good pic that would more
>> than fill most screens (because the pixels on a screen are very much less
>> than the equivalent dots bunched in a digital print of the same file. Plenty
>> enough material to work with). Try not to use such commands as "save for the
>> web" if you can help it - because you mostly don't know what is happening
>> and therefore lose control and experience. Scan at a high resolution. Open
>> in PS. In one or other order (I am awaiting feedback on a slight question on
>> this), reduce the pic to a size you roughly want and compress choosing a
>> number from 1 to 10 in JPG levels. Try 5 or 6 to begin. 4 might be ok. I
>> suspect the faults I mentioned are due too much compression (lower numbers
>> like 0,1,2). You can keep compressing a bit (don't go the other way though)
>> and you can adjust the px dimensions down (again, don't go the other way)
>> till you get a result you want. You will get experienced and not have to
>> fiddle too much after a while...
>>
>> Good luck...
>>
>> dorayme

>
> Thank you
> Before you disappear can you recommend a scan resolution for my 6 x 4 film
> prints?
> --
> Jim on Tyneside UK



I mostly scan just such sizes (and four at a time on a decent sized flatbed)
at 300 dpi (Sometimes at 600 but I better not provoke the regulars on this
newsgroup too much!) You will be on the right side of things doing this. Set
your scanner software to produce largely uncompressed results like tiffs...
The rule is this, unless you *really* trust scanner-packaged software, use
it only so far as you have to. Use a good quality editor to do the rest. I
prefer to do as much editing as I need on the full file before reducing size
and jpging. Get into the habit of "saving as" to preserve your original
"raw" digital scan as fall back source. Fix faults on the raw file, (you can
significantly reduce file size just by doing this - faults like scratches,
spots, hazes, etc etc are just more bytes! And do not use level 0 or 1 (or
2?) when you come to jpg. Get file size down, but trade height width size
instead of quality. 3 can be ok. But try higher, you may be surprised.

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2005
> From: Oli Filth <(E-Mail Removed)>

> Actually, constant gradients *are* something JPEGs handle very well,
> almost perfectly, in fact. This, strange as it seems, is a reason not to
> use them as a test. If you are looking to observe and measure loss, then
> it's best to test it with something that JPEG doesn't handle so well, so
> that there's more of an error signal to observe. A photo with a lot of
> sharp edges would be a good example.
>
> If you're interested in the technical reason, it's because (broadly
> speaking) JPEG compression works by paying less attention to
> high-frequency parts of the image. Edges have lots of high-frequency
> information, which is consequently removed during compression. So on
> reproduction, the edge looks blurred (typically you'll see "ringing" on
> highly-compressed images with lines). A smooth gradient has little
> high-frequency content, and hence gets through the compression
> relatively unscathed.



Yes, I am interested and this makes a lot of sense, and it is well put. I
will now make a better model with lots of sharp edges and also make some
tests on some 80 MB photos (meant for high end printing).

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2005

"dorayme" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:BE967EF7.11397%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > From: Jim Scott <(E-Mail Removed)>

> I mostly scan just such sizes (and four at a time on a decent sized

flatbed)
> at 300 dpi (Sometimes at 600 but I better not provoke the regulars on this
> newsgroup too much!)



What about 1200 dpi?

--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/rimini.php



 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2005
> From: "Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)>

> "dorayme" <(E-Mail Removed)>



>> I mostly scan just such sizes (and four at a time on a decent sized

> flatbed)
>> at 300 dpi (Sometimes at 600 but I better not provoke the regulars on this
>> newsgroup too much!)

>
>
> What about 1200 dpi?
>
> --
> Luigi


Well, this may be a bit of overkill for chemist processed 6X4 prints from
film stock. Slow scanning and processing and hugely unnecessary files.

300 should be fine... I am just wary of trying to be mingy and saying, ah, I
want only 72 dpi so I will scan at this or even 100.


dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2005
> From: Oli Filth <(E-Mail Removed)>

> can assure you there's a difference that one can easily measure:
>
> * Assuming JPEG1 is the Resized->Compressed image, and JPEG2 is the
> Compressed->Resized image.
>
> * Load JPEG into Photoshop
>
> * Copy one and paste it as a 2nd layer on top of the other.
>
> * Right-click the top layer in the Layers panel and select "Blending
> Options..." for the top layer, then select "Difference" in the "Blend
> Mode" drop-down box (i.e. it subtracts it from the bottom layer).
>
> * Select Layer->Flatten Image to create a single layer.
>
> * Select Image->Adjustments->Curves... to get the contrast adjustment graph.
>
> * Bring the low end right up (set the point to Input=4, Output=255). You
> *will* see a difference then.
>
>
> Obviously, this doesn't prove which is superior. To do this, perform the
> difference comparison test above twice, firstly between the resized BMP
> and JPEG1, and then resized BMP and JPEG2. The result for the second
> will be much brighter, proving that this picture is definitively more
> inaccurate and therefore has lost more information.
>
> Check out http://olifilth.co.uk/compression/ if you can't be bothered to
> do all this yourself! (I assure you that JPEG3 and JPEG4 were created
> with the same contrast enhancement settings.)


> --
> Oli



This thread got a bit complicated, if I recall. Anyway, there was a question
about the difference between jpging a pic and then resizing down or vice
versa. I had not seen any difference (I had thought that the former might
have been superior a method - I now realise that I was influenced less by my
own actual practice (which is mixed on this score), than a related practice,
namely to do a fair bit of retouching and other work on the big file before
resizing down). Oli has kindly referred to a few tests to see the difference
(in favour of resize first). Some comments:

The pics in the url referred to were too small for me to judge the matter.
And, frankly, I get a bit confused by the fact that the jpgs are of a
different compression ratio. In the case under discussion we are talking one
fixed compression (and I prefer 0 for this test as it is the most extreme
and should bring things out into the open).

As for the reasoning above in the recipe of steps, this would be interesting
if it was an indicator of what can be seen in a likely real case. And a real
case is easier to follow. So I did one. I got a tiff of 27 MB (2611x2663
pixels at 300ppi). It was a very sharp scene of a harbour setting with
chairs and tables, water craft, water, palms, flower pots, boats and ropes.
There were gradients and lines, horiz, diag, vert, edges of all sorts, low
and high frequency stuff... I jpged max at O. Then resized to 600 wide. Nice
and big still to get a good eyeful on my screen at 100%.

Conclusion: resize first is superior. One can see a higher order of
sharpness. One has to look a bit carefully (saw it first in a small pot of
flowers! But it *is* there Oli. There was no difference in file size at all
- so info is just arranged a bit differently. The term "info loss" is not as
simple as it seems, it is quality rather than just quality.

So! Anyway, I had to see for myself! Could never see it when using smaller
pics. Thanks for your stuff on this. Most interesting.

dorayme












 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The more you read, the more you are confused: about Intel's a patent Weng Tianxiang VHDL 2 02-16-2010 06:11 AM
confused - html validates, css validates but validate css from the html causes errors Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record HTML 6 11-15-2004 12:59 PM
Tables within tables Otuatail HTML 7 08-02-2004 04:42 AM
Utterly confused - web, sql tables what to use for development? RichGK ASP .Net 1 07-31-2004 05:16 AM
Text after 2 tables actually appears between 2 tables ! Peter Bassett HTML 3 08-15-2003 06:46 PM



Advertisments