TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Raphael Bustin on 16 Apr 2006 09:47 On 16 Apr 2006 04:47:50 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >I don't feel like navigatring your site for any information. >If anything, I'd be misinformed from what I've seen >here so far. If you want to enter a text discussion with >"proof", I suggest you put forward some good >argumentation instead of plugs. Otherwise you >might be shown for the fool you are. > >Which basically boils down to: I don't have time >to waste with fools like you. Good bye. That was the longest concession of defeat I've seen in a while, Mr. Noons. Now, show me that a single, low-compression conversion to JPG, from any lossless file format, has caused a visibile loss in this image or any other. That was, and remains the issue, which you have danced around for days. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Raphael Bustin on 16 Apr 2006 10:07 On 16 Apr 2006 04:47:50 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Raphael Bustin wrote: > >> Child, right-click on the image. Your browser >> tells you the size, in pixels. Or suck it into your >> image editor and get the info that way. > > >That tells me the pixels of the CURRENT image, >not how much of a crop it is of whatever the original >was. It would REALLY help if you READ what I wrote >instead of jumping into stupid, childish and misplaced >paroquialism. Excuse me, but what does the size of the "original" have to do with anything? What difference does the "magnifaction" make? These are both red herrings. Please explain how those other 20 million pixels are relevant to the issue at hand (alleged JPG loss.) Are 1 million pixels not enough for you to make your point? How many pixels can you see, at 100%, on your monitor at any instant? What sort of image would you like to see as a test case? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Raphael Bustin on 16 Apr 2006 11:09 On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:05:39 +0200, Don <phoney.email(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The "these" and "straight off the scanner" suggest *two scans*. One >scan saved as JPG and the other scan saved as TIFF. For the purposes >of this test, that's virtually useless because of misalignment. It never happned that way, except in your imagination, Don. >Saved from where? From the scanner program or from an editor later? >The above again seems to suggest two scans. Has the crop been done in >scanner software or in an image editor (some versions of Photoshop >"clip" bit depth). Etc. Etc. Etc... What difference would it make "where" the file was saved from? Your claim, and Mr. Noon's claim, is that the mere saving into JPG causes an observable loss. Mr. Noons, said "but I'll darn be able to tell which one is the JPEG!" And you said: "At 100% magnification (i.e. 1:1) even a JPG image at lowestcompression (i.e. highest quality) stands out like a sore thumb whencompared to the original." ------ I said that was NOT the case for "high quality" (eg. Photoshop "12") JPG encoding. I presented evidence, which you and Mr. Noons are now falling over yourselves to discredit. I posted two versions of the same image -- the same scan. NOT two scans. Get that through your head. You haven't presented any evidence for your case, because you can't. Instead, you and Mr. Noons conjure up one irrelevant criticism after another of my evidence and/or "methodology" as if this were a defense of a doctoral thesis. If you don't like my evidence, by all means please present your own, and make sure that it's something we can repeat using the same tools. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Don on 17 Apr 2006 06:22 On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:09:12 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> wrote: >>The "these" and "straight off the scanner" suggest *two scans*. One >>scan saved as JPG and the other scan saved as TIFF. For the purposes >>of this test, that's virtually useless because of misalignment. > >It never happned that way, except in your imagination, Don. I tried being civil - in spite of your outbursts - but apparently this leads nowhere as you continue to be abusive. And, as you very well know by now, I don't engage in such futile exercises. Don.
From: biphoto on 17 Apr 2006 16:44
Alan Meyer wrote: > If I ever get a job as director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art > and need a good man to do scanning, Don is someone I would want > to call. I would know that the scans he did are as perfect as > one could make them. Gee I don't know, I might want someone who really did not what he was talking about. It is statments like this of Don's that show he knows very little "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. If you find it hard to see simply overlay the images and flip between them. The JPG one will have quite easily identifiable 8x8 pixel blocks which is how JPG compression works. " I have done this test, unless you are saving at less the 100% quality you can't see a difference. Why would I want to use someone who knows so little about image file formats? Scott |