Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 29/03/24 01:52:14 GMT |
Message # 18246.1.2.1.1.1 Subject: Re: JPEG format Date: Thu 15/09/05 10:40:23 GMT Name: AnthonyX Email: anthonyx@jowc.net |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
I'm quite familiar with the ability to select different levels of compression with most jpeg implementations. What I think I am seeing a hint of is that - all other things being equal - different implementations will produce different results. In other words, given the same source image, compressed to the same file size, different products each performing their own jpeg compression should produce an image of the same visible quality level, however this does not appear to be so. It appears that different jpeg implementations will produce visibly different results when compressing the same source image to output files of the same size, or that in order to achieve visibly similar results, different implementations will compress to different degrees.
To put it simply, it appears that some implementations are more efficient than others, regardless of the setting the user has dialed in.
|
In reply to Message (18246.1.2.1.1) JPEG format
By FountainFrolic - Thu 15/09/05 09:41:47 GMT Hi Anthony,
That's standard and well known. JPEG includes the ability to choose different amounts of compression within the image file as its created. Most all programs that will allow you to save an image in JPEG format have an adjustment - usually a slider bar that comes up within the "Save As" dialog box, and allow you to choose between image quality and file size.
-FF- |
In reply to Message (18246.1.2.1) Re: Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Thu 15/09/05 08:59:54 GMT Graham, this is interesting.
Your raw 3k x 4.5k pixel image is only 1.6MB, yet "raw" "super-fine" jpeg images from my camera at less than half the resolution are at least as large (typically around 2MB). I didn't think there could be any significant variation in jpeg algorithms, but it does appear to be the case. It seems that for a given degree of detail in the stored image, different jpeg implementations can have significantly different levels of efficiency.
|
In reply to Message (18246.1.2) Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By Graham (Styx) - Thu 15/09/05 07:47:10 GMT That's the photo "as is". There's nothing more to see (such as the skirt) in that sample shot. The shots are RAW from the camera. We then crop, edit, add any enhancement and then publish - normally at 1200 pixels. The entire photoset is #207 on StyxWetWorld, shot by me while in Florida. We don't show them this large as it's not practical. But, taking them large, allows for cropping and editing. And we hand-crop/edit every photo individually for the site. |
In reply to Message (18246.1) Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By soggybottom - Thu 15/09/05 07:14:51 GMT It looks like a great shot. Can you imagine the detail? Wish it was a little further back and show the skirt. I imagine that he just forgot to resize the photo before submitting. I'll run it through PS and reduce it to see what it is. |
In reply to Message (18246) LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By Detlef - dummedrecksau@gmx.de Thu 15/09/05 07:04:50 GMT Well it's kind of a fetish in my fetish. I love large pictures. I leave out most small ones I find. The larger the better. And as I know how to handle pics in ACDSee I can scale it the way I want it and zoom at the interesting parts just like using a digital camera and having that girl standing right in front of me... I wanna FEEL and TOUCH every wet spot.
Graham sent me the largest wetlook picture I've ever seen: http://www.styxfreeworld.com/pics/styxww-large.jpg
Anyone got a larger one? What do you think about large pictures?
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.002 seconds to generate ]