JPEG Trouble

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by stormwatcher, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. stormwatcher

    stormwatcher Guest

    Hi,

    I am having trouble opening a JPEG file. The particular file was
    created on a friend's HP Scanner and is 1.6 MB in size. I use Photoshop
    Elements 1, and the file is either very slow to open, or the computer
    locks up when trying to open it. When I have been able to open the
    image, after retouching it, the computer locks up when trying to save
    it. Opening JPEG files of similar size taken with my digital camera are
    no problem at all.

    Any suggestions as to what the problem may be?
    Thanks in advance for your advice.

    Paul
     
    stormwatcher, Nov 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "stormwatcher" <> writes:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am having trouble opening a JPEG file. The particular file was
    > created on a friend's HP Scanner and is 1.6 MB in size. I use Photoshop
    > Elements 1, and the file is either very slow to open, or the computer
    > locks up when trying to open it. When I have been able to open the
    > image, after retouching it, the computer locks up when trying to save
    > it. Opening JPEG files of similar size taken with my digital camera are
    > no problem at all.


    Post the image somewhere, and maybe someone will be able to analyze
    it.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. stormwatcher

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am having trouble opening a JPEG file. The particular file was
    > created on a friend's HP Scanner and is 1.6 MB in size. I use Photoshop
    > Elements 1, and the file is either very slow to open, or the computer
    > locks up when trying to open it. When I have been able to open the
    > image, after retouching it, the computer locks up when trying to save
    > it. Opening JPEG files of similar size taken with my digital camera are
    > no problem at all.
    >
    > Any suggestions as to what the problem may be?
    > Thanks in advance for your advice.
    >
    > Paul


    Hi Paul...

    With no disrepect, thinking that if someone else scanned it for you,
    that perhaps you have a too slow, or insufficient memory, or too little
    disk space problem?

    Maybe you'd like to post what it is you're using.

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 15, 2005
    #3
  4. stormwatcher

    Martin Brown Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am having trouble opening a JPEG file. The particular file was
    > created on a friend's HP Scanner and is 1.6 MB in size. I use Photoshop
    > Elements 1, and the file is either very slow to open, or the computer
    > locks up when trying to open it. When I have been able to open the
    > image, after retouching it, the computer locks up when trying to save
    > it. Opening JPEG files of similar size taken with my digital camera are
    > no problem at all.
    >
    > Any suggestions as to what the problem may be?


    What size is the image in pixels?
    How much memory and disk do you have?
    What PC & OS ?
    Is it only Elements 1 that dies or do other apps also croak?

    On the face of it I would be inclined to suspect toy Photoshop...

    > Thanks in advance for your advice.


    Post the thing on the web and it can be analysed. Much as I personally
    dislike older HP scanners for their wildy unstable USB connections (I
    have one). I have never had any problems with image quality from it.

    The fact that it dies horribly about one in ten times that the screen
    saver kicks in is very annoying and I will never buy another.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Nov 15, 2005
    #4
  5. stormwatcher

    ASAAR Guest

    On 15 Nov 2005 12:29:52 -0800, stormwatcher wrote:

    > Any suggestions as to what the problem may be?
    > Thanks in advance for your advice.


    I don't have Photoshop Elements, but with IrfanView (free) you can
    see how much memory your 1.6MB file would require. If the JPG file
    is highly compressed, it may be using so much memory as to create
    stability problems for your particular computer. If that's the
    case, try again, making sure that no other programs are running
    other than Elements, including any background tasks such as virus
    scanners, etc. Running low on disk space on the drive that
    contains the Windows Swap File can also cause problems. That
    happened to me once, and as a result, small print jobs would
    succeed, but large ones always failed, until I freed up additional
    space on the C: drive.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 15, 2005
    #5
  6. stormwatcher

    stormwatcher Guest

    Here's some more info. I'm using Windows XP with 512 MB of RAM, 40 GB
    drive with 25 GB free space. The photo will not open with Windows
    Picture and Fax Viewer either.

    I downloaded IrfanView and it will slowly open the picture. The width
    is 5924 pixels with a heigth of 8336 pixels. IrfanView shows 1.62 MB as
    the image size and 141.28 MB as the current memory size. Is this where
    the problem lies?

    I want to retouch the photo and save it in a format that is more easily
    accessible in the future.

    I have yet to post any images on the net. Any suggestions where I might
    quickly do this?

    Thanks,
    Paul
     
    stormwatcher, Nov 16, 2005
    #6
  7. stormwatcher

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:

    > Here's some more info. I'm using Windows XP with 512 MB of RAM, 40 GB
    > drive with 25 GB free space. The photo will not open with Windows
    > Picture and Fax Viewer either.
    >
    > I downloaded IrfanView and it will slowly open the picture. The width
    > is 5924 pixels with a heigth of 8336 pixels. IrfanView shows 1.62 MB as
    > the image size and 141.28 MB as the current memory size. Is this where
    > the problem lies?
    >
    > I want to retouch the photo and save it in a format that is more easily
    > accessible in the future.
    >
    > I have yet to post any images on the net. Any suggestions where I might
    > quickly do this?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Paul


    Hi Paul...

    That's a pretty big picture; I wouldn't expect windows to open it, or
    even try.

    The numbers work out about right, so there's probably nothing wrong with
    the data. However feel free to email me a copy if you like, if it's not
    of something personal I'll be happy to open it (and time it)

    It is however quite highly compressed, it's probably going to be quite
    "artefact-y"

    And finally, I suspect your speed isn't out of order, not the failing
    to re-save it. 512 megs is imho insufficient memory - perhaps
    marginally work, but just barely. Try shutting down any (if any) other
    applications while you play with it.

    Good luck, and take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 16, 2005
    #7
  8. stormwatcher

    ASAAR Guest

    On 15 Nov 2005 17:03:05 -0800, stormwatcher wrote:

    > I downloaded IrfanView and it will slowly open the picture. The width
    > is 5924 pixels with a heigth of 8336 pixels. IrfanView shows 1.62 MB as
    > the image size and 141.28 MB as the current memory size. Is this where
    > the problem lies?
    >
    > I want to retouch the photo and save it in a format that is more easily
    > accessible in the future.


    That sounds like the cause of your problem. That image is HUGE.
    Editing it requires even more memory. I'd try to have IrfanView
    save it immediately after opening it. Use a fairly high compression
    ratio. In IrfanView "speak", this would be a moderately low value
    for the "Save Quality" in the JPEG/GIF Save Options window.

    If your computer doesn't have enough memory to do this without
    crashing, as a last resort you could try to have your friend rescan
    the photo, using much more realistic parameters. The 1.6MB file
    size isn't the problem. The memory size should be far less than
    141MB, and (assuming that a 35mm negative was scanned) the output
    resolution of 5924x8336 pixels (49MP) is way too high. That might
    even be a bit high for some scans of MF negatives. Note that
    Canon's and Nikon's highest res. sensors, which probably produce
    higher resolution images than most people achieve with 35mm color
    film, are only about 16MP and 12MP. If the image could be rescanned
    to produce a 12MP image, assuming that your friend is competent at
    scanning, you'd probably be pleased with the result.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 16, 2005
    #8
  9. stormwatcher

    ASAAR Guest

    On 15 Nov 2005 17:03:05 -0800, stormwatcher wrote:

    > I have yet to post any images on the net. Any suggestions where I might
    > quickly do this?


    Many of the websites that offer free services restrict the
    resolution to less than that of your images. As an alternative, you
    could easily post them to a binary newsgroup. The only caveats
    would be first, to make sure that the newsgroup is carried by the
    news servers used by the people that would try to download them.
    Second, understand that the image files would only be available for
    a short period, depending on the user's server. The usual range is
    from about 3 or 4 days for the free servers provided by most ISPs,
    to several weeks, even a month or more for premium servers. Two
    that might work are alt.binaries.photos.original and
    alt.binaries.pictures. There are hundreds of similar
    alt.binaries.pictures.* newsgroups. I just checked
    alt.binaries.pictures.spam and it was completely empty, making it
    very convenient, if non-spam photos aren't frowned on by the
    spammers. :)
     
    ASAAR, Nov 16, 2005
    #9
  10. stormwatcher

    stormwatcher Guest

    Well, after closing all other programs, I got the JPEG to open in
    Photoshop. I resized the picture to 2000 x 3000 pixels and saved it a
    lower quality resolution. At that point, the file size became 291kb and
    18.7mb when opened. This works fine and the resolution still appears
    quite good.

    How much can JPEG compress? I never thought a 1.6MB file could open so
    large. I still have s-o-o-o much to learn about digital.

    Anyways, thanks for all your suggestions, especially to give IrfanView
    a try. It helped!

    Paul
     
    stormwatcher, Nov 16, 2005
    #10
  11. stormwatcher

    Jim Guest

    On 2005-11-15 15:29:52 -0500, "stormwatcher" <> said:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am having trouble opening a JPEG file. The particular file was
    > created on a friend's HP Scanner and is 1.6 MB in size. I use Photoshop
    > Elements 1, and the file is either very slow to open, or the computer
    > locks up when trying to open it. When I have been able to open the
    > image, after retouching it, the computer locks up when trying to save
    > it. Opening JPEG files of similar size taken with my digital camera are
    > no problem at all.
    >
    > Any suggestions as to what the problem may be?
    > Thanks in advance for your advice.
    >
    > Paul


    Need computer info... type, processor, ram, software OS Version etc.
    Elements 1 is an antique by now and it is entirel possible it does not
    support current jpeg compressions.

    --
    Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
     
    Jim, Nov 16, 2005
    #11
  12. stormwatcher

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:
    > Well, after closing all other programs, I got the JPEG to open in
    > Photoshop. I resized the picture to 2000 x 3000 pixels and saved it a
    > lower quality resolution. At that point, the file size became 291kb and
    > 18.7mb when opened. This works fine and the resolution still appears
    > quite good.
    >
    > How much can JPEG compress? I never thought a 1.6MB file could open so
    > large. I still have s-o-o-o much to learn about digital.
    >
    > Anyways, thanks for all your suggestions, especially to give IrfanView
    > a try. It helped!
    >
    > Paul


    Hi Paul...

    Glad to hear you're making progress; but there's still one lesson
    you might have to learn :)

    Sincerely hope that if the pic you're working on is important that
    you've kept a copy of the original - always a good idea, but in this
    case even more so.

    What you're going to find out, if you haven't already, is that jpeg
    will compress a tremendous amount, but going as far as you have there's
    a terrible, terrible price to pay. There's no such thing as a free
    lunch, right? :)

    jpeg is _lossy_ compression. It works for the most part by reducing
    the number of colours in your pic so that it can build indexes to them
    and shrink blocks of similar colours. So, if you'll look at the
    pic you now have down to about 300k at 100% (only a piece at a time,
    of course - scroll around) you'll see jpeg artefacts. Blocks of
    color that will very much spoil it. You might think of it as
    posterization of a sort.

    You'll sadly see the same artefacts if you print it.

    Suggestions are: keep a copy of the original, that you can again
    work on when you have more "power". Meantime, go ahead and compress
    a copy, but not nearly so much. Experiment. Learn. Then share what
    you've learned :)

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 16, 2005
    #12
  13. stormwatcher

    Roger Guest

    On 15 Nov 2005 19:33:27 -0800, "stormwatcher" <> wrote:

    >Well, after closing all other programs, I got the JPEG to open in
    >Photoshop. I resized the picture to 2000 x 3000 pixels and saved it a
    >lower quality resolution. At that point, the file size became 291kb and
    >18.7mb when opened. This works fine and the resolution still appears
    >quite good.


    What appears to have been happening was the computer was page file
    swapping. Loading the image and then storing the rest back on the
    drive in a swap file. (virtual memory) which makes them very slow.

    Your original image was 5924 X 8336 pixels. That's not large, it's
    huge. That is 49.382 mega pixels plus change, At a color depth of
    only 8 bits the image becomes ... <:)) large enough my calculator
    went into scientific notation. 395 megabytes plus change.

    When I went from 500 Meg to one gig of RAM it was like the difference
    between night and day. You can get a pair of 500 meg memory modules
    for less than $100 now. It seems like I saw them at Best Buy for $39
    or so, but I really wasn't paying attention.

    >
    >How much can JPEG compress? I never thought a 1.6MB file could open so


    You really need a later version of PE and more memory (which is
    currently cheap!), but PE gives you a range of compression rated in
    quality. You can compress over a range of 2:1 to a lot. I think it's
    on the order of 50 or 100:1 max without looking it up.
    I just finished taking a 10 Meg tiff and converting it into a 180K jpg
    for a map that is displayed on an Internet site. That calculates out
    as 55:1 and I still had room to go down to about 100K. At 180K it's
    already showing artifacts on a big screen if you know what to look
    for.

    >large. I still have s-o-o-o much to learn about digital.


    I'm running a 3.4 gig 64 bit Athlon with 2 gigs of RAM. Unfortunately
    that makes me a bit lazy and I tend to run a lot of apps at the same
    time. OTOH it lest me get away with running a lot.

    >
    >Anyways, thanks for all your suggestions, especially to give IrfanView
    >a try. It helped!


    Good luck and we all run into something new just about every day<:))

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >
    >Paul
     
    Roger, Nov 16, 2005
    #13
  14. stormwatcher

    Bob Williams Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:
    > Here's some more info. I'm using Windows XP with 512 MB of RAM, 40 GB
    > drive with 25 GB free space. The photo will not open with Windows
    > Picture and Fax Viewer either.
    >
    > I downloaded IrfanView and it will slowly open the picture. The width
    > is 5924 pixels with a heigth of 8336 pixels. IrfanView shows 1.62 MB as
    > the image size and 141.28 MB as the current memory size. Is this where
    > the problem lies?
    >
    > I want to retouch the photo and save it in a format that is more easily
    > accessible in the future.
    >
    > I have yet to post any images on the net. Any suggestions where I might
    > quickly do this?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Paul
    >

    I think that your friend does not know how to scan images.
    It sounds like he scanned a 5x7 print at 1200 dpi.
    There is no reason to scan a photo at anything greater than 300 dpi.
    Prints do not contain any more image information thah that.
    Even if the original was 9x12 (the entire scanner surface) and it was
    scanned at 300 dpi, that would only yield a 9.7 MP image.
    Your image is almost 50MP!!!!! That is huge .
    Many newbies think that one should scan a photo at the highest
    resolution that the scanner offers, which is commonly 1200 dpi.
    Unfortunately, this leads to problems like yours. Way too many pixels.
    Also, he must have compressed the hell out of it.
    You image,UNCOMPRESSED, would have a file size of about 148MB!!!
    To get a file size of 1.62 MB he would have had to compress it by a
    factor of more than 90.
    Try re-scanning the image at 300 dpi and everything should work fine.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Nov 16, 2005
    #14
  15. Ken Weitzel wrote:
    []
    > That's a pretty big picture; I wouldn't expect windows to open it, or
    > even try.

    []

    Windows should open that without problem, providing there is enough
    physical (and perhaps virtual) memory. Windows XP or 2000, that is, not
    the toy Windows 9X versions. 1 - 2GB RAM suggested.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 16, 2005
    #15
  16. stormwatcher

    Jim Townsend Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:


    > I downloaded IrfanView and it will slowly open the picture. The width
    > is 5924 pixels with a heigth of 8336 pixels. IrfanView shows 1.62 MB as
    > the image size and 141.28 MB as the current memory size. Is this where
    > the problem lies?


    At 5924 x 8336 pixels, the image is 50 megapixels. The file size may
    be 1.62 MB, but JPEG images are compressed. They must be uncompressed
    back to their original 141 MB size in your computer memory in order to edit
    them.

    If you take into account the fact that when you make a change to the image,
    another copy is made in your computer memory (for the undo function).. So if
    you were to change the contrast, now you have 141 + 141 = 242 MB of memory used
    up.. I'm nosurprised the image is very cumbersome to load and edit :)

    If you can get the image open, get the pixel size down to something sane by
    using: Image -> Resize -> Image Size

    Change the pixel dimensions to something like 3553 x 5000. Make sure
    the 'Resample image' box is checked.

    Doing this will reduce the image size in memory from around 141 MB to
    around 50 MB and make it far more manageable.

    Of course if you *need* the image to be the size it is, then the simple answer
    to your question is that you'll need more computer power to edit it.
     
    Jim Townsend, Nov 16, 2005
    #16
  17. stormwatcher

    ASAAR Guest

    On 15 Nov 2005 19:33:27 -0800, stormwatcher wrote:

    > Well, after closing all other programs, I got the JPEG to open in
    > Photoshop. I resized the picture to 2000 x 3000 pixels and saved it a
    > lower quality resolution. At that point, the file size became 291kb and
    > 18.7mb when opened. This works fine and the resolution still appears
    > quite good.


    Congratulations! That's still an awful lot of compression, so
    keep the original 1.6MB file in case you ever want to up the quality
    a bit by creating a new output file somewhere between 291kb and
    1.6MB. But the odds are that the 291kb file will be good enough for
    most purposes.


    > How much can JPEG compress? I never thought a 1.6MB file could open so
    > large. I still have s-o-o-o much to learn about digital.


    As do we all. Just as a test, I took one image scanned from film
    and stored on a Kodak Photo CD (the highest resolution of the 5
    internal images, 3072x2048). Using IrfanView I saved it as a JPG
    file at 100% quality. Then it was resaved at several lesser quality
    settings to see how the compression would increase. Interestingly,
    the memory size (18 MB) was about the same as your file, and my
    results agree with yours. Here's what I got:

    Quality File Size Memory Size
    100% 3.77 MB 18 MB
    75% 523 KB 18 MB
    50% 293 KB 18 MB
    25% 161 KB 18 MB
    10% 76 KB 18 MB
    5% 52 KB 18 MB

    Even at only 25% quality, the results were pretty good at high
    screen magnification. But at the same magnification, the 10%
    quality file look very, very bad. The 5% file was so much worse
    that it actually made for interesting viewing. <g>


    > Anyways, thanks for all your suggestions, especially to give IrfanView
    > a try. It helped!


    You're welcome. I learned a bit more about JPG compression too!
    Unfortunately, I also discovered that the PCD plugin, used to allow
    IrfanView to access the two highest resolution images in the PCD
    file does a poor job. Compared to the Base resolution, the 4 Base
    and 16 Base images appear very dark and muddy. The plugin was
    really designed for Photoshop which I don't have. I wonder how well
    it works with Photoshop or PE. If it does a good job with either of
    them that would probably be incentive enough for me to get PE.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 16, 2005
    #17
  18. stormwatcher

    stormwatcher Guest

    When my friend gets back into town I'll have him rescan the photo
    properly as it is an important pic.

    It probably is time to add some RAM (again) to my computer. Can anyone
    vouch for Photoshop Elements 4? The pro Photoshop software would be
    overkill for me and I've been happy with Elements 1 so far.

    Paul
     
    stormwatcher, Nov 16, 2005
    #18
  19. stormwatcher

    Roger Guest

    On 16 Nov 2005 12:01:25 -0800, "stormwatcher" <> wrote:

    >When my friend gets back into town I'll have him rescan the photo
    >properly as it is an important pic.
    >
    >It probably is time to add some RAM (again) to my computer. Can anyone
    >vouch for Photoshop Elements 4? The pro Photoshop software would be
    >overkill for me and I've been happy with Elements 1 so far.
    >


    PE 4 works quite well. There are some things it does more easily than
    Photoshop. Unless you are heavily into editing I don't see a reason
    for needing something like photoshop. I have both as well as Paint
    Shop Pro. Each has a place and I do use all three.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com


    >Paul
     
    Roger, Nov 17, 2005
    #19
  20. stormwatcher

    Ron Hunter Guest

    stormwatcher wrote:
    > When my friend gets back into town I'll have him rescan the photo
    > properly as it is an important pic.
    >
    > It probably is time to add some RAM (again) to my computer. Can anyone
    > vouch for Photoshop Elements 4? The pro Photoshop software would be
    > overkill for me and I've been happy with Elements 1 so far.
    >
    > Paul
    >

    PSE3 is excellent, but has a few warts. I didn't feel PSE4 added enough
    value to buy the new version and Adobe only offered a $20 discount for
    upgrading. I suspect you would be happy with PSE4. About 90% of the
    functionality of PS CS, at $100. Not a bad value, and a photo organizer
    added in.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 17, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    940
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. certsnsearches

    Exiff-jpeg and jpeg

    certsnsearches, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,296
    Jim Townsend
    Jan 7, 2004
  3. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,284
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Conrad

    jpeg and jpeg 2000

    Conrad, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,732
    Barry Pearson
    Feb 3, 2007
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation

    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    831
Loading...

Share This Page