TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Raphael Bustin on 17 Apr 2006 19:15 On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:22:17 +0200, Don <phoney.email(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >And, as you very well know by now, I don't engage in such futile >exercises. When you misinform, you devalue this forum and cause knowledgeable people to depart. When you say things like this: "At 100% magnification (i.e. 1:1) even a JPG image at lowest compression (i.e. highest quality) stands out like a sore thumb when compared to the original." without qualification, that is misinformation, plain and simple. I've offered several counter-examples to make my point. You've offered nothing of substance to defend yours. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen on 18 Apr 2006 08:34 If you know where to look you will definitely see JPEG artifacts at a 100% zoom. Just look at sharply defined diagonal lines, and it's easy to see the JPEG compression at work. But I agree, I will not matter at all for the content of the image. I file everything as maximum quality JPEG. -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.
From: Raphael Bustin on 18 Apr 2006 09:20 On 18 Apr 2006 14:34:56 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ole-hjalmar.kristensen(a)substitute_employer_here.com> wrote: >If you know where to look you will definitely see JPEG artifacts at a >100% zoom. Just look at sharply defined diagonal lines, and it's easy >to see the JPEG compression at work. But I agree, I will not matter at >all for the content of the image. >I file everything as maximum quality JPEG. Please indicate where such artifacts appear in either version (ie., JPG or TIF) of the scan. I just don't see them. Obviously, with severe upsampling one can induce these effects, but they're not in the film scan, as far as I can see. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Don on 19 Apr 2006 10:38 On 18 Apr 2006 14:34:56 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ole-hjalmar.kristensen(a)substitute_employer_here.com> wrote: >If you know where to look you will definitely see JPEG artifacts at a >100% zoom. Exactly. >Just look at sharply defined diagonal lines, and it's easy >to see the JPEG compression at work. That's one example. Another one is areas with lots of high contrast detail where the 8x8 pixel JPG squares are as plain as can be. >But I agree, I will not matter at >all for the content of the image. >I file everything as maximum quality JPEG. Both of those are statements of subjective opinion (i.e. a reflection of how much one values image content). I never talk about that because that not only depends on the context but each person has their own individual requirements. I only talk about objective facts and, as you yourself confirm, clearly visible JPG artifacts at 100% are a self-evident, axiomatic fact. Don.
From: Don on 19 Apr 2006 10:38
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:15:11 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> wrote: >When you say things like this: > > "At 100% magnification (i.e. 1:1) even a JPG image at lowest > compression (i.e. highest quality) stands out like a sore thumb > when compared to the original." > >without qualification, that is misinformation, plain and simple. No, it's a simple fact. Explained thoroughly in subsequent messages where I tried being conciliatory by not responding to your unwarranted abuse. Unfortunately, your reply to that calm, factual response was more unwarranted abuse. You were in the middle of a slug fest with our Mr. Noons so I may have just caught some shrapnel the first time around (which is why I tried being conciliatory and tried to calm things down) but the second batch of abuses shows that initial outburst was not an accident. >I've offered several counter-examples to make my point. >You've offered nothing of substance to defend yours. No, you did not. You offered highly processed images with no way of confirming their veracity which all together made them meaningless in this context. I explicitly specified parameters required for an objective test and you violated virtually all of them in your "examples". Climbing all the way back to those parameters now - and risking more abuse in the process - at this point seems like an exercise in futility. The facts are all out there so let the reader decide for themselves. A careful reader will arrive at meaningful conclusions, a careless readers will spew nonsense. We've already seen examples of both. Don. |