at the quality jpeg. Although not enough to save my scans as jpeg
obviously :-)
Julie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: 06 February 2001 13:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
On Mon, 05
I'm suspicious. They don't call jpeg lossy for nothing. I wonder if Mr.
Lab Manager didn't pull a fast one on you and compress to jpeg and then
expand and save as tiff. If there weren't ANY difference between the
jpeg and the tiff, no one would bother with tiff or PSD format.
Something is
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:43:49 - Cooke, Julie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I didn't realise it was common to compress
to jpeg and would have liked to have been told that/given the option.
Fair comment I think. Did they do it again without charge or a fight? If so,
they are probably worth
"Alan Tyson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So JASC could alter their import routine, but PSP still
wouldn't be able to write a 48-bit image, so there's not a
lot of point in it. I have quite enough trouble with 24-bit
myself, so I'm happy with PSP7.
At least you could read the file. Of course it
Yes, I noticed same thing with photoshop 5.0. Though I don't remember
whether it was 24 or 48 bit file.
Regards.
--- "Brian D. Buck" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the topic of file compressionHas anyone else noticed that
Photoshop
5.5's compression of 48-bit LZW TIFFs actually makes the
:-)
Julie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 February 2001 13:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:03:00 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
For example, Julie may want to sell her
work
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
look, within Photoshop, at the
image under high zoom and see if you not a clumping or
blockiness to the
pixels or "noise" (really artifacts) around small dots
with high
contrast.
on 6/2/01 06:50 am, Alan Tyson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
shAf already mentioned that he had JPEG software that
allowed him to preview compare uncompressed and compressed
images.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that PaintShopPro7 also has an
excellent JPEG compression magnifying preview
Alan wrote:
PSP7 only works with 24-bit images, however, and only
uncompressed tifs.
If you choose to save as "Tagged Image File Format (*.tif,*.tiff)" you have
a button "Save Options" where you can select:
"Compression: FAX - CCITT 3, Huffman encoding, LZW compression, Packbits or
"Alan Tyson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PSP7 only works with 24-bit images, however, and only
uncompressed tifs.
Huh? PSP7 (and all the versions I've used) supports LZW
compressed TIFF. It *doesn't* support 48bit TIFFs, at
least not in the format exported from Vuescan.
Actually I think there's
compressed images from Photoshop *will* load into PSP7, but
you can only save them as 8-bit per channel, as I understand
it.
Regards,
Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Henk de Jong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:03:00 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
For example, Julie may want to sell her
work to a "stock photography" library, who sometimes insist on 50Mb
files. She would not be able to (honestly) sell an image which had
been JPEG compressed at any time.
Oh I don't
I tried this on a 50 MB tiff image. After following your instruction, the
histogram shows a single spike adjacent to the left border of the
histogram
box directly above the black arrow. Adjusting the levels arrows doesn't do
anything. All the subtracted pixels are black. What am I doing
From: "Alan Tyson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PSP7 only works with 24-bit images, however, and only
uncompressed tifs.
PSP 7 can read and save compressed TIFF files (and all previous versions I
have used going back to version 4.12 could too). In fact, when saving you
get the option of using one of
On the topic of file compressionHas anyone else noticed that Photoshop
5.5's compression of 48-bit LZW TIFFs actually makes the file bigger than
the uncompressed version? Not to mention it is achingly slow to open them
up! On my machine it takes about a minute to open a 100MB LZW TIFF vs.
it will amplify any differences. I'll send you some example
files.
Jack Phipps
-Original Message-
From: Stan Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
Jack,
I tried this on a 50 MB tiff
In a message dated 2/6/2001 12:35:17 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone else noticed that Photoshop
5.5's compression of 48-bit LZW TIFFs actually makes the file bigger than
the uncompressed version?
There's a common mistake when compressing tiff files. You need
to use a
Alan wrote:
PSP7 will not read the compressed 48-bit tif files from
Vuescan, saying "a predictor of 2 is only supported on LZW
compression for 8 and 24 bit images." It's fine for 24-bit
Vuescan compressed or uncompressed tifs.
Ah, yes. I think PSP may also read a 48bit uncompressed
file? I'll
Yes, Dean, a very good point that I missed when I first started using
PS. I was "blown away" by the quality of JPEGS PS could produce, until
I realize that I was looking at the exact same uncompressed image with a
new name in the title bar.
All the conversion does to the image in memory is
of the
spikes in levels it will amplify any differences. I'll send you some example
files.
Jack Phipps
-Original Message-
From: Stan Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
Jack,
I tried
In a message dated 2/5/2001 9:19:45 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital. I
paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back. I took the CD back to the
manger, who told me that it was a 50MB scan, compressed to 7MB and that all
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital. I
paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back. I took the CD back to the
manger, who told me that it was a 50MB scan, compressed to 7MB and that all
the information would be there when I opened it up!!! I think by this he
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cooke, Julie
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:15 AM
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk (E-mail)
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising
in digital. I
paid for a 50MB scan
From: "Cooke, Julie" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital.
I explained that jpeg was a lossy compression, that information had been
lost when converting to jpeg and it was no good to me. He looked at me as
if
I was mad and said that he uses
I think the manager is correct. This is only 7:1 compression, and I
suspect that if you did a bit by bit subtraction of the jpeg and tiff
files you'd find at most some errors in the least significant bit.
If they are doing ANY compression at all, they should tell you UP FRONT, no
question
If what you say abouut TIFF being the way to go, why then are the Majority of
Labs still scanning to the JPEG format? Would like an explantion, as I am
still amazed with digital imaging proceedures.
In a message dated 2/5/2001 10:00:42 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image at 72DPI? I do not
believe that would be useful at all.
The way this is usually done is to put blown-up examples on the web
page along with graphics showing the bit
Julie writes ...
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising
in digital. I paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back.
...
Ed is probably correct ... but I don't blame you, and I don't know
why your service refused or objected to your request.
I happen to
.
Julie
-Original Message-
From: Henry Richardson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2001 14:51
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
From: "Cooke, Julie" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising
Ed writes ...
In a message dated 2/5/2001 9:19:45 AM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just had my 6x7 trannies ...
... This is only 7:1 compression, and I suspect that if
you did a bit by bit subtraction of the jpeg and tiff
files you'd find at most some errors in the least
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
It this place you are dealing with doesn't understand basic things like
this, you probably should not be using them.
I would tell them to do the job again, or give you your money back, period.
Would you mind telling who the 'lab' is so we
WRGill writes ...
If what you say about TIFF being the way to go,
why then are the Majority of Labs still scanning
to the JPEG format? Would like an explantion, ...
No one is arguing about the common practice of labs compressing into
the JPEG format. We are arguing that labs should
Could
it possibly be because it is easier and cheaper for them to output to in
terms of storage and transportability as well as because everyone seems to
assume that everyone wants their scans for use on the Web and do not really know
about or concern themselves with such matters as
Austin writes ...
...
How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image
at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all.
The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but
the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had
be defined at 300ppi. Julie only
In a message dated 2/5/2001 10:51:27 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only question which remains is if the service's JPEG compression
also smoothed the data before compression.
The way to test this is to start with a tiff file from a well-focused
scanner (assuming a 24-bit tiff file is
How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image
at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all.
The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but
the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had
be defined at 300ppi. Julie only needs to "re-define"
the
I pick up the scan tomorrow, I should have both the original jpeg scan on it
and a 50MB bitmap file.
I will compare the two.
Julie
-Original Message-
From: shAf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2001 17:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning
I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the
web for us to see, that is just silly. The only way to make a 50M image
reasonably viewable (say 800x600 @ 100DPI) on the web is to resample it. That
renders it pretty much useless for any type of detailed image
In a message dated 2/5/2001 11:45:48 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the
web for us to see, that is just silly.
No, no no. The only thing that needed is to crop a small bit of
the image and show how there's no
Thanks, learning new words also, re: posterisation, close but no cigar,
Special Renderings (Page 1 of 4) (Select the image or image title below to
see a higher resolution image) SR 01 VIC 6X9CM Twelve Apostles (Textured)
(28K) SR 02 NT 6X7CM The Olgas (Painted) (8K) SR 03 NT 6X4CM Ayers Rock
Sorry about all of this, just wanted a simple explanation, which I never
received.
W. R. Gill
Carmel, CA
On this tiff - jpeg discussion, I found it interesting to compare the tiff and jpeg
versions of the Photodisc Target, one 40MB and the other 4MB, both downloadable from
ftp://ftp.photodisc.com They are both in Adobe RGB colour space.
At 100% display, I don't remember finding any discernible
, 2001 8:15 AM
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk (E-mail)
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital. I
paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back. I took the CD back to the
manger, who told me that it was a 50MB scan
WRGill wrote:
If what you say abouut TIFF being the way to go, why then
are the Majority of Labs still scanning to the JPEG format?
Would like an explantion, as I am still amazed with digital
imaging proceedures.
My guess is a combination of ignorance and probably a desire to fit more
images
From: Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is also a good way to show to the lab that
yes, you do loose something at the highest quality setting.
It still seems to me that the main point is that this "digital" lab doesn't
even understand the basics of digital imaging if they don't know that JPEG
at the orange part of the block on the
left, top shelf, the gradations of orange in the tiff are closer to each
other than in the jpeg.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Maddock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
| On this tiff - jpeg discussion, I found it interesting to compare the tiff
and jpeg versions of the Photodisc Target, one 40MB and the other 4MB, both
downloadable from ftp://ftp.photodisc.com The
]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post
it to the web for us to see, that is just silly. The only way to
make a 50M
Hi Julie,
I certainly empathize with your concerns. The unfortunate (and good)
thing about the JPEG compression method is the compression setting can
vary from making absolutely no difference in the recreated image
(basically lossless) to one that looks like it was shot with a web-cam.
I know there is no such thing as a typical image, but using your
software mentioned below, with a "typical image" at 7:1 compression
ratio, do you see any loss of color info, or detail? If so, who would
you define it in terms of loss of info?
Art
shAf wrote:
I happen to have JPEG
wrong?
Stan Schwartz
http://home.swbell.net/snsok
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 4:43 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
Julie--
Do you have a high
51 matches
Mail list logo
