Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Here are samples below, zoomed large, but same size and side by side
for comparison, to better learn to recognize the JPG artifacts (that is a
cookie jar at left, with a little reflection on it)
Original TIF image ABOVE, zoomed to 300% size
Zooming to 300% size is not the normal thing to do, but it does help
to recognize these JPG artifacts the first time. After you learn what you
are looking for, then you can recognize them at 100% size too.
Note that most other types of image file compression (for example
PNG or TIF LZW) are lossless compression, meaning that there is
absolutely no loss of quality due to compression (zero loss), so that
then file quality is simply not an isssue at all, and the most critical user
need not ever worry about it. The TIF file above used LZW
compression. However lossless file compression is less effective,
meaning that it can not produce files so drastically small as JPG. The
lossless file size is closer to the actual size of the color data, perhaps
70% or 80% instead of 5% to 20%.
I want to call this JPG an extreme example, and it is poor, but it is not
extreme. You ought to see some of the images that people send me
asking why their images are so poor. This JPG was done in Photoshop,
and Adobe's lowest quality settings are conservative, and won't let us
make them as extreme and poor as some other programs will. The JPG
quality numbers like 8 or 9 are NOT absolute values, instead they are
relative to the JPG properties that each program chooses to
individually use.
JPG artifacts do vary, and this will be of more concern when you do
this same test on your own images. Once you realize what you are
looking for, then JPG artifacts are easy to see and recognize at 100%
size. Some people are more critical than others, asking "How good can
I make it?" instead of "How small can I make it"? Your priorities are
your own, but afer you are able to recognize JPG artifacts, you will be
able to judge how much of this you want in your own images.
Use a higher JPG Quality factor to minimize these effects (or don't use
JPG at all if maximum quality is important). Less JPG Quality is more
JPG compression, a smaller file, but worse artifacts. Normally you may
detect some artifacts even at high Quality factors, and you can learn
to recognize this easier if you zoom in to about 400% size. But the
image can still be very usable size if the compression is mild. Now you
know what to look for, and how to look for it, and how to judge if you
want it or not.
The JPG artifacts become part of the image data, and it cannot be
removed. Sharpening again after JPG compression (next time) will
emphasize these JPG artifacts, so be careful with that. Actually, very
slight intentional softening or blurring before JPG compression will help
minimize the effect of the JPG artifacts (and will slightly reduce JPG file
size too).
If you find that you must edit the JPG image and must save it as JPG
again, at least try to use the same program and same value of Quality
or Compression every time you save the file. Using different values will
use different parameters that will aggravate the damage due the lossy
compression. I am certainly not suggesting repeated saving of JPG
files with the same parameters is a good thing, but only that there are
even worse ways to do it.
IrfranView needs its free extra JPG plugin package to provide lossless
rotation, which is then found at menu Options - Lossless JPG
Operations when the JPG file is open.
Continued
Web scantips.com
JPG format has a magic status for us. JPG is wonderful when the
purpose is right, but we need to understand we pay a cost in quality. I
know you surely will consider using JPG for master copies, everyone
does at first, because the JPG file is so small, and the idea is frightfully
appealing. But it's a high price paid in lost quality, and you will
eventually come around to appreciate the quality of TIF files. I hope
that happens before you have damaged important images that you
cannot scan again. Some people argue that high quality JPG masters
are not so bad. That's OK with me, it's your file, but the file size is one
property of an image, and quality is another. You can choose either
way, and I hope you choose Highest Quality, at least for your master
copies. My goal is that you understand the effects of your choice in
regard to your valuable master copies.
If you simply must use JPG for your master copy (if file size is the
most important property of this image), then at least use the best
Quality you can. Aim for a average JPG file size at least as large as
25% of its true memory size. For web images, file size is indeed
important, and absolute quality is less important, and a JPG file size
10% of uncompressed size is often a good tradeoff of quality for size
for color images, but that is too extreme for any notion of a master
copy. Grayscale images do not compress as much as color at the same
settings. Grayscale is already 1/3 the size of color, and grayscale JPG
files won't compress as much.
Then keep a master copy that you never rewrite. For any purpose,
always start with a copy of that JPG master and never modify that JPG
master itself. Saving that JPG master image again causes more
artifacts, even more loss, permanent loss, so simply don't do it. If you
simply need to rotate to vertical, or to scale for printing, consider not
saving that simple change at all if it is trivial to do again. Save any
change to a different file, and never make your one master copy
worse. Or save the change to a TIF file, so as to not create more JPG
artifacts. You could of course just use a TIF master instead, and sleep
better at night. And be aware that lowering scan resolution to
reasonable values for the purpose is often the best size reduction you
can make.
Judge your own common sense periodically. Why can't we see that a
decent JPG image compressed to be only 25% of original size (1/4
size, still amazingly small, and still with mild artifacts), is more useful,
and a much better deal, than one at 5% size that is simply too awful
to use? I know, the macho types are saying "but I can get it down to
3%". Then go for it man! <grin>
For emailing and for web pages, JPG file format is the smallest by far,
and the best goal by far (for photo images). JPG is acceptable for such
read-only "viewing" use, and a JPG copy normally is used for such
purposes. JPG is NOT very acceptable for "editing" use, when you may
need to edit and save the image again (we always do). JPG is best
only for photographic images. For line art and graphic files
(characterized by containing graphic sharp edges and very few but
solid colors), then TIF LZW or PNG is good, or GIF files too, which have
historically been used for graphics on web pages.
The process of saving a JPG file to disk first compresses the image
data to make the file be much smaller. This JPG compression affects
the image quality, because JPG compression uses a very different
technique than does PKZIP or TIF LZW or PNG file compression (lossy
vs. lossless). JPG compression is extremely effective, because it does
not attempt to be 100% faithful to the original image data. If parts of
the image data are a problem for it, the JPG compression simply
modifies that data to make it conform better. That means when we
read that JPG file later, we don't get back the same original image
data (that is the meaning of lossy, losses of image quality). Also the
software opening that JPG image does a similar thing when it reads it.
It does not necessarily show exactly what is in the file, it can also take
similar liberties. Web browsers for example are not the best JPG image
viewers, but they are the fastest JPG viewers.
Most other file formats (say TIF or PNG) use lossless compression.
These files are larger than JPG because they use milder, fully
recoverable (lossless) compression to carefully preserve all of the
original image data. These file formats remain full quality at all times,
no matter how many times we might save them to a file, which is of
course exactly what is needed for a master copy.
The small JPG file size is great, but it has a big price of reduced
quality. There are proper times and places one would use it, and also
major reasons one would not. There's nothing wrong with creating a
JPG image using a moderate to high Quality factor to put a photo
image on a web page or to send it via email. It's the only practical
way. However there is an additional quality loss when we try to edit
and save that JPG file a second time, so JPG is usually inappropriate
for important archived master copies. The risk if you make this
mistake now is that you cannot undo it in the future, so now is the
best time to understand the situation.
Progressive JPG is a web option that quickly shows the entire image in
very low quality, and the quality fills in and improves as the file
download completes.
JPEG 2000
A new JPEG 2000 file format is available now in many newer program
versions, with various file extensions, normally .jp2 (or .jpx, with
option extensions). JPEG 2000 uses a wavelet compression method. It
has a lossless option (to perhaps 65% size). Otherwise it is lossy, size
comparable to regular JPG files, but different... slower then JPG, but
arguably perhaps better quality. Extremes of compression have few
detectable artifacts, however JPEG 2000 images become noticeably
soft with greater compression.
Note that web browsers do NOT support JPEG 2000 yet, and so
compatibility is still a very significant issue. Therefore it seems
important to stay with the original JPG format for now, at least if you
want others to be able to open your files.