Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Making a jpeg look better than it really is?

Reply
Thread Tools

Making a jpeg look better than it really is?

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2007
Richard DeLuca wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)-state.edu>,
> Richard DeLuca <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <xbQvh.9473$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>>>
>>> To see what I mean, go back and look at your Sent Items folder in
>>> your e-mail program. There you'll find the original images as you
>>> sent them. Take a look at the kitty portrait, and it should read
>>> about 18kb.

>>
>> You're correct- as I sent it....it reads 21KB. But the image before
>> I attached it to the email.... reads 84KB. Could that be because I
>> have that original image as a thumbnail? Could making it a
>> thumbnail have really added about 60KB??

>
> BTW, have you received the several emails I've sent? No need to
> answer them if short on time- I just wonder if they're getting to
> you.........


Yes. I got your address, etc. Thanks.
I've been home with the flu since Saturday night... So I won't make it to a
post office until Thursday (staying home tomorrow, too).

Do try and send that better file, though...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2007
Richard DeLuca wrote:
> In article <xbQvh.9473$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Richard DeLuca wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry Mark, but now I'm really confused. When I check the image
>>> size on my computer, I get 84kb.......... how can that be? Even the
>>> worst image is 72kb when I ask for the image info.
>>>
>>> The images were made on a very early Kodak digital camera, that
>>> recorded onto a floppy, if you can believe. I may also have been
>>> using the digital zoom....... back then I didn't know any better,
>>> and the kittens were so skittish, I couldn't get close. Maybe I
>>> fiddled with them once or twice with an imaging program a long time
>>> ago, but no more than that.
>>>
>>> Do we mean the same thing when we are referring to the 'smaller'
>>> image? Finally, could I get the tiff image from you? Downloading
>>> your image from online gives me an image size of 124kb. When I
>>> convert it to a tiff, it becomes 1.5MB. Yet the images appear the
>>> same size and of equal quality. What's wrong with my thinking here?
>>>
>>> Sorry- I know you've spent a LOT of time trying to help me.

>>
>> I'm talking about the original image that you sent to me via e-mail.
>> After I worked with it, and saved it in various ways, it was indeed
>> the larger file you indicate, but I'm talking about the image as it
>> was when you sent it. *Your* originally-sent file.
>> Don't worry... I'm just trying to figure out whether you might have
>> a better original lurking on your hard drive somewhere.
>>
>> To see what I mean, go back and look at your Sent Items folder in
>> your e-mail program. There you'll find the original images as you
>> sent them. Take a look at the kitty portrait, and it should read
>> about 18kb.

>
> You're correct- as I sent it....it reads 21KB. But the image before I
> attached it to the email.... reads 84KB. Could that be because I have
> that original image as a thumbnail? Could making it a thumbnail have
> really added about 60KB??


Just do this:
Use your Windows Explorer (or My Computer) to navigate to the 84kb image.
RIGHT-click on it and click copy.
Now hit reply to one of my e-mails to you, and then right-click within the
message, and click paste.
Send me the e-mail, and I'll tell you what I get.
I suspect that I'll end up with a MUCH better original than I initially
received.
Try it.

PS--Sorry if my instructions are over-kill... It just seems that there is
some confusion, so I'm trying to get at the real file.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard DeLuca
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2007
In article <HxRvh.9486$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>
> Yes. I got your address, etc. Thanks.
> I've been home with the flu since Saturday night... So I won't make it to a
> post office until Thursday (staying home tomorrow, too).
>
> Do try and send that better file, though...


Sorry to hear you're sick. Wait until you're up and about before
continuing my project, okay? At least that will make ME feel
better....
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2007
Richard DeLuca wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had to put my cat to sleep three weeks ago. She died very young and I
> never got really decent pictures of her. All that I have are a few
> jpegs that are 480 by 640 and about 70 to 80 kb each. All the more sad
> because, although she was a stray, she was really gorgeous.
>
> I've done a little manipulating of images with Graphic Converter on my
> MAC, but haven't progressed beyond things like an unsharp mask, etc. I
> know I can't really make them sharper, but is there a way to make them
> appear sharp enough to get maybe 4X6 prints from them? Any secrets or
> magic of which I'm not aware?
>
> I'm really heartsick over the loss of this animal, and Barbaro's
> euthanasia today just wounds me all over again.
>
> Thanks for any help!



Hello, Richard:

I'm very sorry. Something like that happened to me, a couple of years
ago, except it involved an old, sick dog.

Long before ill health or death took their tolls, I'd purchased a
disposable film camera -- but, never got around to using it. I did snap
some shots of the pet, with my original digicam (Largan Lmini 350). It's
only 350,000 pixels (640x480), so its resolution is far from great,
unfortunately.

Later, I upgraded to better Kodak products; first, a 1-megapixel DC3200,
and then, a DX3900 (3MP). I still neglected to employ either of them, to
photograph the animal in question, alas.

Today, I own a pair of Kodak "super zoom" models, a P850 (5MP, 12x
optical) and a DX6490 (4MP, 10x). The current canine receives plenty of
attention, from those two puppies, as well as the DX3900!

What matters the most, actually, is having >any< pictures of loved
ones, human or otherwise. Our respective, 640x480 devices did the job,
just as the "Box Brownies" of earlier eras had done.

Remember: It's the >content< of a photo, more than anything, which
determines its true value. Image quality is fine and dandy, but,
it shouldn't be the sole consideration (nor even, the main one,
necessarily).


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2007
John Turco wrote:
> Richard DeLuca wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had to put my cat to sleep three weeks ago. She died very young
>> and I never got really decent pictures of her. All that I have are
>> a few jpegs that are 480 by 640 and about 70 to 80 kb each. All the
>> more sad because, although she was a stray, she was really gorgeous.
>>
>> I've done a little manipulating of images with Graphic Converter on
>> my MAC, but haven't progressed beyond things like an unsharp mask,
>> etc. I know I can't really make them sharper, but is there a way to
>> make them appear sharp enough to get maybe 4X6 prints from them?
>> Any secrets or magic of which I'm not aware?
>>
>> I'm really heartsick over the loss of this animal, and Barbaro's
>> euthanasia today just wounds me all over again.
>>
>> Thanks for any help!

>
>
> Hello, Richard:
>
> I'm very sorry. Something like that happened to me, a couple of years
> ago, except it involved an old, sick dog.
>
> Long before ill health or death took their tolls, I'd purchased a
> disposable film camera -- but, never got around to using it. I did
> snap some shots of the pet, with my original digicam (Largan Lmini
> 350). It's only 350,000 pixels (640x480), so its resolution is far
> from great, unfortunately.
>
> Later, I upgraded to better Kodak products; first, a 1-megapixel
> DC3200, and then, a DX3900 (3MP). I still neglected to employ either
> of them, to photograph the animal in question, alas.
>
> Today, I own a pair of Kodak "super zoom" models, a P850 (5MP, 12x
> optical) and a DX6490 (4MP, 10x). The current canine receives plenty
> of attention, from those two puppies, as well as the DX3900!
>
> What matters the most, actually, is having >any< pictures of loved
> ones, human or otherwise. Our respective, 640x480 devices did the job,
> just as the "Box Brownies" of earlier eras had done.
>
> Remember: It's the >content< of a photo, more than anything, which
> determines its true value. Image quality is fine and dandy, but,
> it shouldn't be the sole consideration (nor even, the main one,
> necessarily).


-But when your disire is to make a quality PRINT...it definitely matters...


Already taken care of, in this case though. -So happy happy happy.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2007
> Richard DeLuca wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had to put my cat to sleep three weeks ago. She died very young
>> and I never got really decent pictures of her. All that I have are
>> a few jpegs that are 480 by 640 and about 70 to 80 kb each. All the
>> more sad because, although she was a stray, she was really gorgeous.
>>
>> I've done a little manipulating of images with Graphic Converter on
>> my MAC, but haven't progressed beyond things like an unsharp mask,
>> etc. I know I can't really make them sharper, but is there a way to
>> make them appear sharp enough to get maybe 4X6 prints from them?
>> Any secrets or magic of which I'm not aware?

[]
>> Thanks for any help!



Paint Shop Pro has functions which can help remove JPEG artefacts, but it
can't perform magic. It's a PC/Windows program.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2007
David J Taylor wrote:
>> Richard DeLuca wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I had to put my cat to sleep three weeks ago. She died very young
>>> and I never got really decent pictures of her. All that I have
>>> are
>>> a few jpegs that are 480 by 640 and about 70 to 80 kb each. All
>>> the
>>> more sad because, although she was a stray, she was really
>>> gorgeous.
>>>
>>> I've done a little manipulating of images with Graphic Converter
>>> on
>>> my MAC, but haven't progressed beyond things like an unsharp mask,
>>> etc. I know I can't really make them sharper, but is there a way
>>> to
>>> make them appear sharp enough to get maybe 4X6 prints from them?
>>> Any secrets or magic of which I'm not aware?

> []
>>> Thanks for any help!

>
>
> Paint Shop Pro has functions which can help remove JPEG artefacts,
> but it can't perform magic. It's a PC/Windows program.
>
> David


I've read a suggestion that scaling up a small image by several times,
applying judicious blur and other corrections then reducing to a size
useful for printing can produce "pretty good" results where previous
attempts were unsatisfactory.

It may be worth stair-stepping to 4800x6400 in 10% increments,
manipulating a bit, then stair-stepping down to 2400x3200 for your
prints.

For those who use Photo Shop, I swear by Hoon Im's utility:
http://www.imphotography.com/downloads/ssimagesize.htm
It installs itself on the Automate menu, and operates painlessly and
well.

My friend the movie actor liked one shot I made couple weeks ago on a
set; unfortunately the "head shot" he wants is just a small percentage
of the whole frame (even smaller [and brighter] than the example,
below), so I had to crop and inflate-deflate. I'll pick up the test
versions from Costco this afternoon. Here's hoping ...
http://www.fototime.com/FDB41D7D9EC0561/orig.jpg

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2007
"MarkČ" wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> > Richard DeLuca wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I had to put my cat to sleep three weeks ago. She died very young
> >> and I never got really decent pictures of her. All that I have are
> >> a few jpegs that are 480 by 640 and about 70 to 80 kb each. All the
> >> more sad because, although she was a stray, she was really gorgeous.
> >>
> >> I've done a little manipulating of images with Graphic Converter on
> >> my MAC, but haven't progressed beyond things like an unsharp mask,
> >> etc. I know I can't really make them sharper, but is there a way to
> >> make them appear sharp enough to get maybe 4X6 prints from them?
> >> Any secrets or magic of which I'm not aware?
> >>
> >> I'm really heartsick over the loss of this animal, and Barbaro's
> >> euthanasia today just wounds me all over again.
> >>
> >> Thanks for any help!


<edited, for brevity>

> > Remember: It's the >content< of a photo, more than anything, which
> > determines its true value. Image quality is fine and dandy, but,
> > it shouldn't be the sole consideration (nor even, the main one,
> > necessarily).

>
> -But when your disire is to make a quality PRINT...it definitely matters...
>
>
> Already taken care of, in this case though. -So happy happy happy.



Hello, MarkČ:

Okay, you handled the technical aspects of the case, whereas I offered
moral support.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
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
GL2 better than the XLs? Consumer grade HDs better than pro-sumer Mini DVs? dh@. DVD Video 1 08-28-2008 07:20 PM
Re: Making a jpeg look better than it really is? Frank ess Digital Photography 0 02-10-2007 04:03 AM
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation Paul D. Sullivan Digital Photography 14 01-30-2007 07:34 PM
Is splint really better than lint? Is there a better tool than splint? Peter Bencsik C Programming 2 09-21-2006 10:02 PM
REALLY REALLY WERID PROBLEM!!!!pls take a look Amir ASP .Net 3 01-23-2004 06:01 PM



Advertisments