Re: [darktable-user] JPEG quality idea: default to use quantization table from JPEG original when applicable.
Em 03/11/18 18:11, Stéphane Gourichon escreveu: [...] So, how about implementing, like GIMP does, an option like this: [✔] Use quality settings from original image (when available) I rarely work on JPEG source, preferring RAW except on very specific cases, but it makes sense and indeed I would appreciate it. [...] # Feedback welcome **Knowing what people on this mailing-list think of such a feature is interesting.** [...] Looks like a good default option. But... What is the current default? 95? That is what I have set, but I am not sure if I ever changed it. Ricardo André darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
Re: [darktable-user] JPEG quality idea: default to use quantization table from JPEG original when applicable.
* Michael Below [11-03-18 16:19]: > Hi, > > Am Samstag, den 03.11.2018, 19:11 +0100 schrieb Stéphane Gourichon: > > Applying the principle of least surprise invites me to suggest an > > idea: defaulting to roughly same image file weight. > > # Idea, with details > > So, how about implementing, like GIMP does, an option like this: > > > > [✔] Use quality settings from original image (when available) > > I agree abot the principle, but I think file size is not the relevant > point when talking about images. > > For me, the main point is that darktable preserves the image quality of > an input image as far as possible, even when it is in a lossy format > like JPEG. your responsibility, adjust the quality/compression XX%. > The idea of re-using quantisation tables can make sense, I am not a > programmer. But re-using the "quality settings" as presented to the > user seems a bad idea. The numbers on the JPEG quality scale are not > standardized. One program's "70" may be another program's "90" and so > on. So (possibly) downgrading an image of higher quality until it meets > darktable's JPEG quality numbering scheme would be a bad idea, at least > as a default. This would be a surprise for me. > > On the other hand, there may be a neat way to calculate the necessary > quality of a JPEG for the given information content of an imported > file. So darktable could determine that a darktable-specific setting of > "83" is required to transport all the valid information from an input > file that has been saved in another program with a setting of "70" or > "90" (according to that program's scale). This would be a fine way to > deal with the file size issue mentioned earlier (but even then, it may > be considered surprising if darktable did this by default). but what is "valid" in your mind is not the same as in mine or others. the mentioned "file size issue" was more due to the OP not knowing about the setting and it's purpose. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
[darktable-user] Re: [darktable-dev] noise
Andrey, I just released, last week, episode 19 in my YouTube series. It was all about noise reduction in darktable. Feel free to check it out here... https://youtu.be/p9xIz6mYsIc Cheers, Bruce Williams. On Sun., 4 Nov. 2018, 05:05 William Ferguson Try this... > > To add the styles to darktable - save the styles, then in lighttable mode > open the styles dialog and click import, select the files, then import > them. Each one is standalone, so if you start with 1 and it's not enough > then you try 2, 2 will overwrite 1. The higher the number the stronger the > settings and I add more modules. > > Hope this helps, > > Bill > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:59 PM Andrey L wrote: > >> Hello, guys. Canon DPP makes me crazy, but DT is unable to compete with >> neither Canon DPP, nor RawTherapee :( >> Could you please pay some attention to DarkTable's noise removal >> opportunities? >> I have to spend senconds with Canon DPP to suppress noise on high-iso >> image, >> I need minutes to get a good result in RawThrerapee, but nobody can spend >> hours >> to make bad result with tons of noise reduction tools. Please, break the >> last barrier to DT :`| >> Here my example: >> original image: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz9fwFLCJOjNMnJlTzgwcHZOdTA >> canon dpp: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz9fwFLCJOjNc1RoWW9kN3d3V0k >> rawtherapee: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz9fwFLCJOjNNnZWNjVSYXhaX28 >> >> The best efforts In general lead to green noise on barbells. It's too >> complex problem for regular photographer. >> >> ___ >> darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to >> darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org >> > > ___ > darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
[darktable-user] JPEG quality idea: default to use quantization table from JPEG original when applicable.
Hi everyone, # Context Recently on this mailing list a user was surprised to import JPEG in darktable then export them and see a huge difference in file weight (byte count). This violates the principle of least surprise, also known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment # Idea in one sentence Applying the principle of least surprise invites me to suggest an idea: defaulting to roughly same image file weight. # Idea, with details So, how about implementing, like GIMP does, an option like this: [✔] Use quality settings from original image (when available) I rarely work on JPEG source, preferring RAW except on very specific cases, but it makes sense and indeed I would appreciate it. Here is a snippet from Gimp documentation https://docs.gimp.org/2.4/en/gimp-images-out.html#id2561830 : Use quality settings from original image If a particular quality setting (or “quantization table” ) was attached to the image when it was loaded, then this option allows you to use them instead of the standard ones. If you have only made a few changes to the image, then re-using the same quality setting will give you almost the same quality and file size as the original image. This will minimize the losses caused by the quantization step, compared to what would happen if you used different quality setting. If the quality setting found in the original file are not better than your default quality settings, then the option “Use quality settings from original image” will be available but not enabled. This ensures that you always get at least the minimum quality specified in your defaults. If you did not make major changes to the image and you want to save it using the same quality as the original, then you can do it by enabling this option. # Use the source Luke I might consider implementing it some day. I have already some other ideas for darktable that I could not find time to implement so far. # Feedback welcome **Knowing what people on this mailing-list think of such a feature is interesting.** Thank you for your feedback. -- Stéphane Gourichon darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
[darktable-user] 360 image display as standard image
I want to display a portion of a 360 image as a standard image. Can I do that with darktable or will I have to do that with gimp? -- :-)~MIKE~(-: darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
