TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: rafe b on 20 Apr 2006 17:14 "Noons" <wizofoz2k(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1145546164.461999.320240(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Bingo! And why I make a point of NEVER commenting > on a "crop" of an image without having the original > ENTIRE file to compare against: it's only too easy to - intentionaly > or not - make a crop at anything other than 100% where artifacts > don't show as well or get masked by other noise effects. > With the original file that is a lot harder to do and it becomes > clear which is jpg or tiff. You sure were commenting on crops on 4/12/06. Here are your exact words: "Now, crop the JPEG and increase its size. What a bloody mess, eh? ;-) What, you never cropped an image? Tsk,tsk..." So stop whining already. The burden is on YOU to show us even ONE example of high-quality JPG visibly degrading an image. Preferably from some application I've heard of. Any image, any size, by whatever means. Just do it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Don on 20 Apr 2006 17:14 On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:01:13 -0400, Bruce <XXbg2gX(a)XvirginiaX.Xedu> wrote: >Yes, everyone agrees that with high compression JPG artifacts can be >objectionable. But the point is that at low compression the quality can >be so good that any data loss is imperceptible even after zooming in. That was never the subject, Bruce. It's an unrelated tangent. Please read the messages. To avoid digression I won't comment on the content. On a procedural point, "objectionable" is a subjective term. I never question subjective statements. All I talk about in these cases are facts. That's how these things spiral out of control. People *assume* and attribute things that have never been stated! Others then parachute and pick up on this (without bothering to check the thread or the facts) and pretty soon we have a self-generated feedback loop making ever more baseless and outrages assumptions, etc. >Your answer when shown examples of this is to repeatedly accuse them of >lying (you question the "veracity" of the examples) and then to attack >them for taking offense to your accusations. Again, that's a misinterpretation of the facts. The parameters for an *objective* test have been clearly stated. When the provided examples violate virtually all of them then they are clearly unsuitable. Instead of jumping the gun and posting such unsuitable examples an objective reaction (the proper procedure) is to calmly challenge the parameters first (with facts!) so as to establish the common baseline, etc. Instead, all we've seen is a rush to abuse and name calling! As to veracity, you bet the images need to be thoroughly vetted! That's the cornerstone of objective scientific examination i.e. establish an objective testing environment! But if people respond to calm, factual messages with abuse and then continue to hurl abuse even after one explicitly refuses to respond in kind, it's quite clear they have already made up their minds and nothing will convince them otherwise. They are just spoiling for a fight and that has nothing to do with objective scientific discovery. Which is why this thread has now deteriorated into a hopeless exercise in futility and why I only make procedural comments. >The fact is that if you need to save a photographic image to a limited >file size you will always get a better quality image from a JPG than a >TIF. For example, to fit 100 large images on a CD, with quality JPGs >you could use higher DPI (a very perceptible difference) than you could >with TIFs. Again, that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Please read the thread from the beginning. >And Don, anyone watching sees the pattern where you provoke attacks and >then feign innocence. You got that totally wrong, Bruce, I'm afraid. They work themselves into a frenzy all on their own! :-( Please provide quotes *in context* to support this assertion! Again, the key phrase is *in context*! And be specific and precise! The mere fact that I never respond to abuse speaks volumes. The problem is they immediately enter into a self-perpetuating feedback loop drawing on each other's misinterpretations and unrelated tangents, instead of actually reading the messages. Once that starts all further discussion becomes impossible and pointless. >In this case, if you don't like the data they >show, maybe you should try and reproduce their results before publicly >announcing (on theoretical grounds) And there's the rub! Are you questioning the theory behind the facts? Of course, not. You're glossing over it even though it's the *key* and the only thing that's important here! What you are doing (in the following paragraph) is attributing emotional "conclusions" and "statements" to me I have *never* stated and which have nothing to do with the subject matter. That's why it's essential to *read*, not "read into"! And then someone parachutes into the discussion (without bothering to read it in full) and takes this wrong "conclusion" and "expands" on it, moving ever further from the subject matter and getting ever more excited in the process (the notorious feedback loop) with unsubstantiated accusations flying and abuse growing by the minute. At this point there are basically two courses of action. Try to calm them down (virtually never worked so far) and draw them back to the subject matter or, let the facts (the record) stand and speak for itself thereby avoiding further futile digressions. > not only that they are wrong, but >that they also must be purposely lying. And that's a prime example of what I'm talking about. Please provide a *single* quote *in context* where I have accused anyone of lying. Be precise and specific. Don.
From: rafe b on 20 Apr 2006 17:25 "Don" <phoney.email(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qvbf42ddiompalc0pbdaoop1jaad2hnv7j(a)4ax.com... <the usual bs> You can pile it on but you're getting nowhere. Your credibility is nil. Show us an example where an image file has been visibly degraded by a save to JPG while using "high-quality" JPG-save settings. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Scott W on 20 Apr 2006 17:27 Don wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:01:13 -0400, Bruce <XXbg2gX(a)XvirginiaX.Xedu> > wrote: > > >Yes, everyone agrees that with high compression JPG artifacts can be > >objectionable. But the point is that at low compression the quality can > >be so good that any data loss is imperceptible even after zooming in. > > That was never the subject, Bruce. It's an unrelated tangent. Please > read the messages. > > To avoid digression I won't comment on the content. On a procedural > point, "objectionable" is a subjective term. I never question > subjective statements. All I talk about in these cases are facts. Well Don you did say "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. " And there have been counter examples posted, and yet you seem unable to post an exmple that shows the jpeg standing out like a sore thumb. Why is it that you can't post this image that will stick out as a sore thumb when saved as a jpeg? If you don't have a place to post the tiff file just email it to me and I will be happy to put it up, send it to biphoto(a)hotmail.com I believe the truth is you made a statment that was way off base and just plain wrong. If a jpeg is really as bad as you say you should be able to pick a crop from just about any of your scans as a test case. Scott
From: rafe b on 20 Apr 2006 19:08
"Don" <phoney.email(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qvbf42ddiompalc0pbdaoop1jaad2hnv7j(a)4ax.com... > The mere fact that I never respond to abuse speaks volumes. No, Don, you speak volumes on general principle. You "only respond to procedural matters" because you lost this debate, days ago, but haven't the sense or grace to admit it. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |