Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Better alternative to JPEG

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alexandra
    Posts
    267

    Question Better alternative to JPEG

    After searching and reading many posts i still cannot find a good solution to my quesstion, so hopefully someone here can provide some help.

    I shoot in RAW and process with either NX2 or Camera Raw/Photoshop. (I rarely use the full functionality of PS - often the CR tools are enough for me). Then, i save to .. JPEG at maximum file size / lowest compression. I would like to find and try a format that is lossy but better than JPG, and, common enough to use on various devices (streaming etc).

    - TIFF - WAY to big for me. A 18MB RAW becomes ~25 MB in TIFF.
    - DNG - similar to TIFF and not compatible with other devices
    - JPEG 2000 / HD JPEG / JPG XR- must save one at a time in PS and again not compatible with other devices.

    What else is there???

  2. #2

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    PNG maybe. But realistically, JPEG is the standard. Next, what do you mean by "streaming"? Video and audio is streamed, but not still images.

    Also, what is the resolution you are viewing it as on the devices? Ever consider what a #$^@#^#% pain it is for other people to have to download large images on a mobile device because the photog did not care to create web-friendly images?
    Alpha

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alexandra
    Posts
    267

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    hi -thanks for your reply

    My photos are not used for anything on a web so I'm not concerned about web-friendly. But, as far as i can tell, sharing on FB or something like that automatically downsizes them...?

    I stream photos from PC to Aple TV or AC Ryan. Apple is picky - i think only supports jpg/tiff/gif. AC Ryan supports more.

  4. #4
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,858

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    hi -thanks for your reply

    My photos are not used for anything on a web so I'm not concerned about web-friendly. But, as far as i can tell, sharing on FB or something like that automatically downsizes them...?

    I stream photos from PC to Aple TV or AC Ryan. Apple is picky - i think only supports jpg/tiff/gif. AC Ryan supports more.
    facebook degrades the photo quality... they compress these photos in resolution and quality to save bandwidth.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    I stream photos from PC to Aple TV or AC Ryan. Apple is picky - i think only supports jpg/tiff/gif. AC Ryan supports more.
    TVs are not that good for photo viewing anyway. Also consider the low resolution. I think you are stressing yourself too much when the limits are in the medium.
    Alpha

  6. #6

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    After searching and reading many posts i still cannot find a good solution to my quesstion, so hopefully someone here can provide some help.

    I shoot in RAW and process with either NX2 or Camera Raw/Photoshop. (I rarely use the full functionality of PS - often the CR tools are enough for me). Then, i save to .. JPEG at maximum file size / lowest compression. I would like to find and try a format that is lossy but better than JPG, and, common enough to use on various devices (streaming etc).

    - TIFF - WAY to big for me. A 18MB RAW becomes ~25 MB in TIFF.
    - DNG - similar to TIFF and not compatible with other devices
    - JPEG 2000 / HD JPEG / JPG XR- must save one at a time in PS and again not compatible with other devices.

    What else is there???
    If you are talking about common graphic file formats in this time, it's only GIF, JPEG and PNG. These file formats are highly popularize but their availability in "nearly" all browsers currently available. Anything else out of these few choices and you will likely face with incompatibilities.

    Which file format to choose for your usage will largely depends on your target audience. If you want to cater to the public audience and you don't control the target devices used, then their of those 3 above are currently available with the emergence of JPEG2000 but not fully popularize yet. JPEG2000 is available in Mac Safari currently.

    For photographic genre of images, JPEG will be the most suitable for a specific targeted file size, while PNG will bloat the file size quite a fair bit due to lossless zip compression used. GIF will be out for its limitation of at most near 256 colours.

    For archival purpose, then you can always save in PSD, TIFF or the relevant RAW format to your camera. Space should be your secondary consideration if your purpose is quality.

    While we are always in search of quality, the correct question should be who are your audience and what is the presentation size and requirement. Don't just blindly go for quality without knowing who, what and where you are presenting. With the highest quality available for JPEG, it is quite unlikely you can detect the differences with your naked eyes without a digital comparison with the original. While there are lossless JPEG implementation around, it is still not widely implemented.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  7. #7

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by sinned79 View Post
    facebook degrades the photo quality... they compress these photos in resolution and quality to save bandwidth.
    However, if you are not aware, submitting your images in PNG does render better quality JPEG displayed on Facebook, as compared to submitting the images as JPEG. Give it a try, you will see the difference.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  8. #8

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    hi -thanks for your reply

    My photos are not used for anything on a web so I'm not concerned about web-friendly. But, as far as i can tell, sharing on FB or something like that automatically downsizes them...?

    I stream photos from PC to Aple TV or AC Ryan. Apple is picky - i think only supports jpg/tiff/gif. AC Ryan supports more.
    Since you know your target device, then just keep with TIFF. Do a test, can you actually tell the quality are different on the TV display when you use TIFF or high quality JPEG ? I have confidence to assume you can't really tell any difference, am I right ?

    Next is when you AC Ryan is outputting the video, is it in progressive or interlaced HD (assuming it's high definition). Even technicalities as such affects your output quality and does conclude how you will want to store your images if your intention is to be used for these displays only.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  9. #9

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    PNG maybe. But realistically, JPEG is the standard. Next, what do you mean by "streaming"? Video and audio is streamed, but not still images.?
    Not tryinng to challenge, just a slight technical correction, all information are effectively streamed. Nowadays with the emergence of the latest protocol used widely on the net such as HTML5 multimedia and even some other HTML compliant "streaming" protocol, you find video and audio are much treated the same as images, hence they don't really "stream" in the same way as oppose to RTSP or RTMP. HTTP chunking is not really considered streaming either from a protocol point of view. Taken from a TCP stream, all contents regardless of HTML/CSS/Javascript, Images, Audio, Videos are streamed.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  10. #10

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    Not tryinng to challenge, just a slight technical correction, all information are effectively streamed. Nowadays with the emergence of the latest protocol used widely on the net such as HTML5 multimedia and even some other HTML compliant "streaming" protocol, you find video and audio are much treated the same as images, hence they don't really "stream" in the same way as oppose to RTSP or RTMP. HTTP chunking is not really considered streaming either from a protocol point of view. Taken from a TCP stream, all contents regardless of HTML/CSS/Javascript, Images, Audio, Videos are streamed.
    Well, that is true. I was referring to the more traditional use of the word streaming, where there is a streaming media hub feeding clients. In the case of jpeg images, this streaming is most commonly in flash objects, though HTML5 does support a similar method. In traditional http chunking the images are downloaded locally then displayed, while streaming traditionally only caches within the embedded streaming interface.
    Alpha

  11. #11

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    After searching and reading many posts i still cannot find a good solution to my quesstion, so hopefully someone here can provide some help.

    I shoot in RAW and process with either NX2 or Camera Raw/Photoshop. (I rarely use the full functionality of PS - often the CR tools are enough for me). Then, i save to .. JPEG at maximum file size / lowest compression. I would like to find and try a format that is lossy but better than JPG, and, common enough to use on various devices (streaming etc).

    - TIFF - WAY to big for me. A 18MB RAW becomes ~25 MB in TIFF.
    - DNG - similar to TIFF and not compatible with other devices
    - JPEG 2000 / HD JPEG / JPG XR- must save one at a time in PS and again not compatible with other devices.

    What else is there???
    I presume this is a pretty common workflow for many of us.
    Shoot, save, pp and archive in raw format. Export to Jpeg for distribution to other parties or upload onto internet.
    Batch process the raw so that you do not need to physically save one file at a time into jpeg format.
    Last edited by coolthought; 26th January 2012 at 04:23 PM.
    Coolthought - 冷静思考 - クールだ http://xaa.xanga.com/0aba0666d143253.../t35917343.gif

  12. #12
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    After searching and reading many posts i still cannot find a good solution to my quesstion, so hopefully someone here can provide some help.

    I shoot in RAW and process with either NX2 or Camera Raw/Photoshop. (I rarely use the full functionality of PS - often the CR tools are enough for me). Then, i save to .. JPEG at maximum file size / lowest compression. I would like to find and try a format that is lossy but better than JPG, and, common enough to use on various devices (streaming etc).

    - TIFF - WAY to big for me. A 18MB RAW becomes ~25 MB in TIFF.
    - DNG - similar to TIFF and not compatible with other devices
    - JPEG 2000 / HD JPEG / JPG XR- must save one at a time in PS and again not compatible with other devices.

    What else is there???
    What is wrong with JPG?

  13. #13
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    However, if you are not aware, submitting your images in PNG does render better quality JPEG displayed on Facebook, as compared to submitting the images as JPEG. Give it a try, you will see the difference.
    What is the reason for this?

    Compressing the images yourself beforehand gives better quality JPG displayed on FB, suspect the compression that they are using is done quite badly. This is something new that I read here, but I can't comprehend why this is the case and there has been no explanation given.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edutilos-

    What is the reason for this?

    Compressing the images yourself beforehand gives better quality JPG displayed on FB, suspect the compression that they are using is done quite badly. This is something new that I read here, but I can't comprehend why this is the case and there has been no explanation given.
    While there is no official explanation to this phenomenal, my actual testing towards it really shows that it works. I believe this isn't some black magic, but rather the encoder they are using for these 2 different inputs may be different or the settings used are not equivalent.

    I have uses very high quality jpeg during submission but it still yields badly compressed displayed jpeg images. One thing for sure is re-compression of submitted images is done, and they don't preserve the exif data too. I have not dwell into the actual encoder used by inspecting on the output file, but it is most likely some high speed open source encoder that is currently used.

    There is no special reason why png input files should yield better output, but the situation here is, it just works. So at this point of time, you just enjoy the process of doing so. Nothing much to brain storm over.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  15. #15
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,858

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    However, if you are not aware, submitting your images in PNG does render better quality JPEG displayed on Facebook, as compared to submitting the images as JPEG. Give it a try, you will see the difference.
    hmm can upload png format?

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sinned79

    hmm can upload png format?
    Yup try it for yourself. So far they accept both jpg and png. I don't think other file types are acceptable.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  17. #17

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Just wanna clarify something... why not just output the photos yourself to FB's requirements (in terms of dimension and filesize). AFAIK, FB will not touch the uploaded pictures as long as they are within specs. The FB recompression engine is focused on speed rather than quality from the thousands of pics submitted every second, but why even bother with the additional processing overheads if the user submissions are already within what is required?

  18. #18

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by CamInit View Post
    Just wanna clarify something... why not just output the photos yourself to FB's requirements (in terms of dimension and filesize). AFAIK, FB will not touch the uploaded pictures as long as they are within specs. The FB recompression engine is focused on speed rather than quality from the thousands of pics submitted every second, but why even bother with the additional processing overheads if the user submissions are already within what is required?
    What is the "spec" that Facebook offers to avoid the re-compression of the images? I really haven't come across any articles or anyone whom recommend settings that will ensure Facebook do not re-compress the images to whichever encoding settings it's using meanwhile. The article below, along with the comments, shows that Facebook does the re-compression at all times

    Facebook's photo upload compression

    What findings do you have to offer to support your claim that Facebook "FB will not touch the uploaded pictures as long as they are within specs". If so, what are the "specs" that you are aware of ? Please enlighten us.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  19. #19
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,858

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Quote Originally Posted by CamInit View Post
    Just wanna clarify something... why not just output the photos yourself to FB's requirements (in terms of dimension and filesize).
    i done dat, resize to 700 at widest length but photo quality still sucks.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    The dimensions are announced in the fb blog. I haven't upload for awhile now and apparently, fb has increased the maximum size again from 720x720 to 960x960 according to this post here:
    Bigger, Faster Photos | Facebook

    Hmm... Now that you mention it, I think I have to go back and do a closer examination. My previous observation was that uploading any photos that are bigger than their "recommended" size would really turn everything to crap but now with the continuous changes, I can't say for sure.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •