Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation

Reply
Thread Tools

Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation

 
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2007
I was following the discussion and started doing some searching.

I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key
operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression.

http://www.betterjpeg.com/

Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things,
but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.

If you have any experience on this app, please share some
feedback if you would.

Thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2007
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
> I was following the discussion and started doing some searching.
>
> I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key
> operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression.
>
> http://www.betterjpeg.com/
>
> Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things,
> but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.
>
> If you have any experience on this app, please share some
> feedback if you would.
>
> Thanks


With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step
rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to
re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop:

http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Fields
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2007

"David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
message news:Blouh.1487$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>> I was following the discussion and started doing some searching.
>>
>> I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some key
>> operations in a method that absolutley minimizes recompression.
>>
>> http://www.betterjpeg.com/
>>
>> Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do things,
>> but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.
>>
>> If you have any experience on this app, please share some
>> feedback if you would.
>>
>> Thanks

>
> With the right software, you can perform cropping and 90-degree step
> rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring any extra loss due to
> re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop:
>
> http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/
>
> David


Irfanview (FREE) also supports "lossless" jpg rotations.

mikey

 
Reply With Quote
 
HEMI-Powered
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
Today, David J Taylor made these interesting comments ...

> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>> I was following the discussion and started doing some
>> searching.
>>
>> I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some
>> key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes
>> recompression.
>>
>> http://www.betterjpeg.com/
>>
>> Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do
>> things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.
>>
>> If you have any experience on this app, please share some
>> feedback if you would.
>>
>> Thanks

>
> With the right software, you can perform cropping and
> 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring
> any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop:
>
> http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/
>
> David

adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image
degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring
at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for
altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that
minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re-
save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be
concerned about or to even see

--
HP, aka Jerry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>> I was following the discussion and started doing some
>>> searching.
>>>
>>> I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some
>>> key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes
>>> recompression.
>>>
>>> http://www.betterjpeg.com/
>>>
>>> Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do
>>> things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.
>>>
>>> If you have any experience on this app, please share some
>>> feedback if you would.
>>>
>>> Thanks

>>
>> With the right software, you can perform cropping and
>> 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring
>> any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop:
>>
>> http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/
>>
>> David

> adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no
> image degradation but how does one then save the image without
> incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured out an
> algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma
> subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been
> taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is
> done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to
> even see


I was impressed by their language on their site in way of
explanation. They say they optimize it so only the actual pixels
that have changed are re-saved. It does not process any other
blocks of pixels. Sounds quite smart.

I think I'm going to try that program out more in-depth. Red Eye
Reduction with almost no hit in quality sounds quite good indeed.


 
Reply With Quote
 
HEMI-Powered
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
Today, Paul D. Sullivan made these interesting comments ...

>>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>>> I was following the discussion and started doing some
>>>> searching.
>>>>
>>>> I found this app called Better JPEG that says it does some
>>>> key operations in a method that absolutley minimizes
>>>> recompression.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.betterjpeg.com/
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone heard about this? It seems a smart way to do
>>>> things, but I'm not sure if it is BS or if it is real.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any experience on this app, please share some
>>>> feedback if you would.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> With the right software, you can perform cropping and
>>> 90-degree step rotations on JPEG images /without/ incurring
>>> any extra loss due to re-compression. E.g. Jpegcrop:
>>>
>>> http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/
>>>
>>> David

>> adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no
>> image degradation but how does one then save the image
>> without incurring at least some loss, unless you've figured
>> out an algorithm for altering the compression factor, chroma
>> subsampling, etc. that minimizes damage? I've always been
>> taught that as soon as you re- save at least some damage is
>> done, but NOT necessarily enough to be concerned about or to
>> even see

>
> I was impressed by their language on their site in way of
> explanation. They say they optimize it so only the actual
> pixels that have changed are re-saved. It does not process
> any other blocks of pixels. Sounds quite smart.
>
> I think I'm going to try that program out more in-depth. Red
> Eye Reduction with almost no hit in quality sounds quite good
> indeed.
>

Can't comment on a specific program which may have been written
to minimize image damage under certain well-defined situations as
I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in general terms using my
knowledge - or lack thereof - of who the JPEG spec was designed
and how it is implemented in software.

For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I will
go back to the original unedited camera image which I always
save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of Diminishing
Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I do re-edit my
own or others images. However, I carefully examine the image to
see what damage is already there - it may be slight or
considerable - and usually go to a lower compression rate and/or
alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve best possible results.

Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies,
posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply mild-to-
agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But, one thing I
ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save or a multiple
edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open the just saved (or
re-saved) image an relook for damage. Sometime I see considerable
damage even on a 1st time save, for which I alter my technique as
described above.

Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can afford
compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable. Thus, unless
I am specifically saving proprietary items such as layers vector
data, I usually don't save to a non-compressed format.

Just one man's opinion, YMMV ...

--
HP, aka Jerry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
Good points you make. What with data storage being so cheap
compared to the old days, I can get 7 meg JPG into 14 meg PSP and
store 'em in that native Paint Shop Pro format without much
trouble.

> Can't comment on a specific program which may have been written
> to minimize image damage under certain well-defined situations
> as I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in general terms
> using my knowledge - or lack thereof - of who the JPEG spec
> was designed and how it is implemented in software.
>
> For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I will
> go back to the original unedited camera image which I always
> save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of Diminishing
> Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I do re-edit my
> own or others images. However, I carefully examine the image to
> see what damage is already there - it may be slight or
> considerable - and usually go to a lower compression rate
> and/or alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve best possible
> results.
>
> Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies,
> posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply
> mild-to- agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But,
> one thing I ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save or
> a multiple edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open the
> just saved (or re-saved) image an relook for damage. Sometime
> I see considerable damage even on a 1st time save, for which I
> alter my technique as described above.
>
> Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can
> afford compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable.
> Thus, unless I am specifically saving proprietary items such
> as layers vector data, I usually don't save to a
> non-compressed format.
>
> Just one man's opinion, YMMV ...




 
Reply With Quote
 
HEMI-Powered
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
Today, Paul D. Sullivan made these interesting comments ...

> Good points you make. What with data storage being so cheap
> compared to the old days, I can get 7 meg JPG into 14 meg PSP
> and store 'em in that native Paint Shop Pro format without
> much trouble.


Since I seldome use vector data or extensive layering, PSPimage
isn't that important to me, nor have the many advantages of RAW
been enough to overcome the steep learning curve.

For your example of a 7 MB JPEG into an 8MB PSP, that seems
extreme. What pixel size was used in this comparo? When I do
that, the ratio is more like 10:1 in favor JPEG.

>> Can't comment on a specific program which may have been
>> written to minimize image damage under certain well-defined
>> situations as I haven't tried it/them. I was talking in
>> general terms using my knowledge - or lack thereof - of who
>> the JPEG spec was designed and how it is implemented in
>> software.
>>
>> For me, I try never to re-edit the same image, if I can, I
>> will go back to the original unedited camera image which I
>> always save. However, both the 80/20 Rule and the Law of
>> Diminishing Returns get in the way of that rigid a rule, so I
>> do re-edit my own or others images. However, I carefully
>> examine the image to see what damage is already there - it
>> may be slight or considerable - and usually go to a lower
>> compression rate and/or alter chroma sub-sampling to achieve
>> best possible results.
>>
>> Depending on the types of damage I may see, such as jaggies,
>> posterization, artefacts, noise, etc. etc., I may apply
>> mild-to- agresssive corrective action before re-saving. But,
>> one thing I ALWAYS do, no matter if it is a first-time save
>> or a multiple edit/save/edit/save cycle, is immedately open
>> the just saved (or re-saved) image an relook for damage.
>> Sometime I see considerable damage even on a 1st time save,
>> for which I alter my technique as described above.
>>
>> Since I am not a pro nor do I print to large sizes, I can
>> afford compromizes that others may find to be unacceptable.
>> Thus, unless I am specifically saving proprietary items such
>> as layers vector data, I usually don't save to a
>> non-compressed format.
>>
>> Just one man's opinion, YMMV ...

>
>
>
>




--
HP, aka Jerry
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
HEMI-Powered wrote:
[]
> adept cropping and 90 deg rotates can indeed result with no image
> degradation but how does one then save the image without incurring
> at least some loss, unless you've figured out an algorithm for
> altering the compression factor, chroma subsampling, etc. that
> minimizes damage? I've always been taught that as soon as you re-
> save at least some damage is done, but NOT necessarily enough to be
> concerned about or to even see


In programs such as JPEGcrop, although the image is presented to the
viewer in an uncompressed form for examination and selection of the
cropping region (i.e. as 24-bit RGB), internally the 8 x 8, or 16 x 16
blocks comprising the original JPEG are retained, and the rotation or crop
are made on these blocks, and /not/ on the RGB data.

So, for example, crop simply consists of writing out only the blocks you
need, and altering the file headers to reflect the new number of pixels.
The content of the blocks - the compressed JPEG data - is not altered, so
no new compression loss is incurred because there is no recompression.

Lossless rotation (only at 90 degree angles) is achieved by similar
mathematical operations on the data in the blocks, but again without any
decompression and re-compression.

It's a neat idea which works very well.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2007
> Since I seldome use vector data or extensive layering, PSPimage
> isn't that important to me, nor have the many advantages of RAW
> been enough to overcome the steep learning curve.


I use tons of layers, so it's a very convenient format for me.


 
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
Program Open Minimized Chuck Computer Information 2 02-28-2006 12:38 PM
video and visualization window not showing when minimized =?Utf-8?B?cmVhbHRvcmpvcmdlMjM=?= Microsoft Certification 0 12-10-2005 12:36 AM
Build a Better Blair (like Build a Better Bush, only better) Kenny Computer Support 0 05-06-2005 04:50 AM
window.open minimized Steve Covert ASP .Net 3 07-22-2004 09:59 PM
Why DOS Window can not be minimized/hidden cemal eroglu ASP .Net 0 12-25-2003 06:01 PM



Advertisments