If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage.
So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One
wrote: What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? There are tons. I suggest Irfanview. Photoshop also works well, but not many people have it. Photoshop Elements is a very good program that doesn't get mentioned very often. I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. I haven't seen a digital camera where the resolution (and inversely the file size) hasn't been adjustable. Sounds like you may need to visit the camera's menu system and play with the options. It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Make sure you're not using digital zoom. Other than that, make sure the lens is clean. Digital cameras made in the last 5-10 years should have no problem creating very clear images. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage. You have something wrong with your display device, your playback device, or your source material. You didn't provide enough information to be able to narrow it down any further. So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest. Yep, see above. There are many. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:14:46 PM UTC, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One > wrote: >What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? There are tons. I suggest Irfanview. Photoshop also works well, but not many people have it. Photoshop Elements is a very good program that doesn't get mentioned very often. I have Photoshop CS6 tho I'm a newb to PS, I got it recently. Its quality selector is non-standard, its from 1-12 while the standard is 1-100. >I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. I haven't seen a digital camera where the resolution (and inversely the file size) hasn't been adjustable. Sounds like you may need to visit the camera's menu system and play with the options. You totally missed the point. Yes, the resolution is adjustable and I naturally select the maximum the camera allows, but it ends up looking so obviously blurry and upscaled that it may as well not exist, and the makers of these **** cams oughta be sued for false advertising. Why did I pay $90 for this hunk of junk when its only capable of half the megapixels it advertises? The file size is adjustable too, the problem is the camera's compression algorithm sucks ass and it requires nearly the same filesize no matter the content. Lots of my pics are indoors with a solid white wall and its maybe 100-200 KB smaller than the more complex photos. >It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Make sure you're not using digital zoom. Other than that, make sure the lens is clean. Digital cameras made in the last 5-10 years should have no problem creating very clear images. I've made sure of both. The max selected resolution is still fake. >Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage. You have something wrong with your display device, your playback device, or your source material. You didn't provide enough information to be able to narrow it down any further. No sir, it is quite common for idiot entrepreneurs to exaggerate and push the limits of technologies to give as low possible quality at the highest possible resolution. A blu-ray resized to 720x576 looks way better than a DVD of the same resolution. In fact, I've found most DVDs real level of detail to be around 360p, not 480-576p. Nothing's wrong with any of my equipment, what's wrong is that ****heads are trying to sell the public garbage and get rich. A rather common practice in America. Here's a screenshot straight from the Blu-ray, does this look 1080p to you? http://i45.tinypic.com/2dsgvwi.jpg The level of detail in that particular scene is not even 720p! Obviously upscaled. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One
wrote: You totally missed the point. Yes, the resolution is adjustable and I naturally select the maximum the camera allows, but it ends up looking so obviously blurry and upscaled that it may as well not exist, and the makers of these **** cams oughta be sued for false advertising. Why did I pay $90 for this hunk of junk when its only capable of half the megapixels it advertises? The file size is adjustable too, the problem is the camera's compression algorithm sucks ass and it requires nearly the same filesize no matter the content. Lots of my pics are indoors with a solid white wall and its maybe 100-200 KB smaller than the more complex photos. If you say your unspecified digital camera is a steaming pile of crap, I won't argue. All I can offer is to do more homework next time. Check specs, check user reviews, and take advantage of return policies if it doesn't work as advertised. My digital cameras don't produce blurry photos in general, although they tend to struggle a bit in extremely low light conditions. I'm aware of that, though, and it isn't a problem for me. Here's a screenshot straight from the Blu-ray, does this look 1080p to you? http://i45.tinypic.com/2dsgvwi.jpg The level of detail in that particular scene is not even 720p! Obviously upscaled. With zero knowledge of the source or any of the equipment involved in playback, I can't begin to hazard a guess. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:19:12 AM UTC, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One > wrote: >You totally missed the point. Yes, the resolution is adjustable and I naturally select the maximum the camera allows, but it ends up looking so obviously blurry and upscaled that it may as well not exist, and the makers of these **** cams oughta be sued for false advertising. Why did I pay $90 for this hunk of junk when its only capable of half the megapixels it advertises? > >The file size is adjustable too, the problem is the camera's compression algorithm sucks ass and it requires nearly the same filesize no matter the content. Lots of my pics are indoors with a solid white wall and its maybe 100-200 KB smaller than the more complex photos. If you say your unspecified digital camera is a steaming pile of crap, I won't argue. All I can offer is to do more homework next time. Check specs, check user reviews, and take advantage of return policies if it doesn't work as advertised. My digital cameras don't produce blurry photos in general, although they tend to struggle a bit in extremely low light conditions. I'm aware of that, though, and it isn't a problem for me. >Here's a screenshot straight from the Blu-ray, does this look 1080p to you? >http://i45.tinypic.com/2dsgvwi.jpg > >The level of detail in that particular scene is not even 720p! Obviously upscaled. With zero knowledge of the source or any of the equipment involved in playback, I can't begin to hazard a guess. This has happened on 3 cameras I bought in a row. The equipment you speak of is a built-in blu-ray drive in my computer and decoded by FFDShow. But I really don't see the relevance. This is digital. It either works or doesn't. The only artifacts that do exist from improper decoding are corrupted frames, wild colors you normally need to drop acid to see or slight brightness/contrast offsets. Blurriness is never a digital media artifact. Btw, I welcome you to give me any screenshot straight from a Blu-ray with true 1080p detail. That would be a sight to see. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One
wrote: Btw, I welcome you to give me any screenshot straight from a Blu-ray with true 1080p detail. That would be a sight to see. The term "1080p" doesn't infer any specific level of detail or picture quality. It can be the blurriest picture you've ever seen and still be displayed at 1080p. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
Industrial One wrote:
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:19:12 AM UTC, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One > wrote: >You totally missed the point. Yes, the resolution is adjustable and I naturally select the maximum the camera allows, but it ends up looking so obviously blurry and upscaled that it may as well not exist, and the makers of these **** cams oughta be sued for false advertising. Why did I pay $90 for this hunk of junk when its only capable of half the megapixels it advertises? > >The file size is adjustable too, the problem is the camera's compression algorithm sucks ass and it requires nearly the same filesize no matter the content. Lots of my pics are indoors with a solid white wall and its maybe 100-200 KB smaller than the more complex photos. If you say your unspecified digital camera is a steaming pile of crap, I won't argue. All I can offer is to do more homework next time. Check specs, check user reviews, and take advantage of return policies if it doesn't work as advertised. My digital cameras don't produce blurry photos in general, although they tend to struggle a bit in extremely low light conditions. I'm aware of that, though, and it isn't a problem for me. >Here's a screenshot straight from the Blu-ray, does this look 1080p to you? >http://i45.tinypic.com/2dsgvwi.jpg > >The level of detail in that particular scene is not even 720p! Obviously upscaled. With zero knowledge of the source or any of the equipment involved in playback, I can't begin to hazard a guess. This has happened on 3 cameras I bought in a row. The equipment you speak of is a built-in blu-ray drive in my computer and decoded by FFDShow. But I really don't see the relevance. This is digital. It either works or doesn't. The only artifacts that do exist from improper decoding are corrupted frames, wild colors you normally need to drop acid to see or slight brightness/contrast offsets. Blurriness is never a digital media artifact. Btw, I welcome you to give me any screenshot straight from a Blu-ray with true 1080p detail. That would be a sight to see. Well, now you're mixing topics. Video is a different animal than still camera shots. Video does both spatial and temporal compression (for video formats that involve compression). If you shoot video of a perfectly still scene, then the I-frame collected should be reasonably equivalent to a still camera picture. If there is motion in a picture, any particular frame selected from the video, may not look very good as a "still". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_c..._picture_types As for your camera, and the lies they wrote on the side of the box. I'll give an example. My webcam is 1280x1024 native format. Yet, it promises to shoot 5 megapixel pictures for stills. When in fact, I know I've got all the detail it has to offer, if I shoot in the max "native" resolution. That's what you want to do with your camera, is use the native value. Not any value which requires interpolation to make any in-between pixels to pad out the image. Some cheap cameras, only record in compressed formats such as JPEG. They do this, because the built-in flash chip is so small, and they want to be able to claim the ability to store a large number of photos. Whereas the users, would want the image to be recorded at native resolution, in an uncompressed format (BMP or some particular TIFF format). Some camera users will select RAW as a format, but this has implications for aspects other than just the number of pixels. As for compression methods, there are "lossy" and "lossless" methods. If you have an 8 bit photo, you can use GIF as a "lossless" compression format. No information should be lost with a lossless compressor, but the level of compression to expect is relatively low (maybe 3:1 to just make up a value). Things like JPEG, on the other hand, have a "quality" factor, which goes hand in hand with compression ratio. I could probably get a 100:1 compression ratio with JPEG, but the resulting image would only be fit for the Trash Can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg "Sample photographs" [ three quarters of the way down the web page ] Some cameras, will "soften" the image before storage, and this may be an attempt at noise reduction. You can "sharpen" the image with Photoshop or equivalent, to get back some of the detail. Oversharpening, is a form of digital mutilation, so don't "turn the knob too far". After a few trials, you'll get some idea what looks natural, and what looks like "too much". If shooting stills, with a camera with excessively noisy sensor, and the scene is *perfectly still*, you can shoot two photos, one after the other, with exactly the same lighting, then use Photoshop arithmetic operation to compute (A+B)/2 or the "average" of the two images. This helps reduce the noise to some extent, but without degrading the image. But it only works for things like indoor scenes, where everything in the scene is under your control. I used that technique, when preparing photos for a "how-to" manual for something constructed indoors. Every shot, consisted of two pictures, with the pictures averaged together to get rid of camera sensor noise. It's what you get, from a $100 camera. Even with halogen lighting of the scene, there's still sensor noise present. Better quality sensors, make that less evident (until it gets a lot darker). HTH, Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
Paul wrote:
Industrial One wrote: On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:19:12 AM UTC, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One > wrote: >You totally missed the point. Yes, the resolution is adjustable and I naturally select the maximum the camera allows, but it ends up looking so obviously blurry and upscaled that it may as well not exist, and the makers of these **** cams oughta be sued for false advertising. Why did I pay $90 for this hunk of junk when its only capable of half the megapixels it advertises? > >The file size is adjustable too, the problem is the camera's compression algorithm sucks ass and it requires nearly the same filesize no matter the content. Lots of my pics are indoors with a solid white wall and its maybe 100-200 KB smaller than the more complex photos. If you say your unspecified digital camera is a steaming pile of crap, I won't argue. All I can offer is to do more homework next time. Check specs, check user reviews, and take advantage of return policies if it doesn't work as advertised. My digital cameras don't produce blurry photos in general, although they tend to struggle a bit in extremely low light conditions. I'm aware of that, though, and it isn't a problem for me. >Here's a screenshot straight from the Blu-ray, does this look 1080p to you? >http://i45.tinypic.com/2dsgvwi.jpg > >The level of detail in that particular scene is not even 720p! Obviously upscaled. With zero knowledge of the source or any of the equipment involved in playback, I can't begin to hazard a guess. This has happened on 3 cameras I bought in a row. The equipment you speak of is a built-in blu-ray drive in my computer and decoded by FFDShow. But I really don't see the relevance. This is digital. It either works or doesn't. The only artifacts that do exist from improper decoding are corrupted frames, wild colors you normally need to drop acid to see or slight brightness/contrast offsets. Blurriness is never a digital media artifact. Btw, I welcome you to give me any screenshot straight from a Blu-ray with true 1080p detail. That would be a sight to see. Well, now you're mixing topics. Video is a different animal than still camera shots. Video does both spatial and temporal compression (for video formats that involve compression). If you shoot video of a perfectly still scene, then the I-frame collected should be reasonably equivalent to a still camera picture. If there is motion in a picture, any particular frame selected from the video, may not look very good as a "still". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_c..._picture_types As for your camera, and the lies they wrote on the side of the box. I'll give an example. My webcam is 1280x1024 native format. Yet, it promises to shoot 5 megapixel pictures for stills. When in fact, I know I've got all the detail it has to offer, if I shoot in the max "native" resolution. That's what you want to do with your camera, is use the native value. Not any value which requires interpolation to make any in-between pixels to pad out the image. Some cheap cameras, only record in compressed formats such as JPEG. But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). I only hope if/when I get one, it will have JPEG and MP4 output capability, not BMP and/or raw video. They do this, because the built-in flash chip is so small, and they want to be able to claim the ability to store a large number of photos. That's a pretty good reason though, I think! Whereas the users, would want the image to be recorded at native resolution, in an uncompressed format (BMP or some particular TIFF format). Some camera users will select RAW as a format, but this has implications for aspects other than just the number of pixels. I guess this is assuming most users want the best possible image/video, regardless of the file size. I sure wouldn't. (for the same reason I prefer to have a collection of MP3 files, not WAV files, stored on my computer) As for compression methods, there are "lossy" and "lossless" methods. If you have an 8 bit photo, you can use GIF as a "lossless" compression format. No information should be lost with a lossless compressor, but the level of compression to expect is relatively low (maybe 3:1 to just make up a value). Things like JPEG, on the other hand, have a "quality" factor, which goes hand in hand with compression ratio. I could probably get a 100:1 compression ratio with JPEG, but the resulting image would only be fit for the Trash Can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg "Sample photographs" [ three quarters of the way down the web page ] Interesting link. I think even the 23:1 compression one looks pretty good! My experience with JPG compression is you can often compress the image quite a bit, and still get good results - and save a ton of disk space. But it depends on the image. snip |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
Hi, Bill,
On 7/25/12 10:27 PM, Bill in Co wrote: But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). It all depends on what you want to do with the photo. If you're just going to print the photo on your inkjet, or send to Walgreens or similar, the JPG will be just fine. But, if you're a professional photographer, the Ansel Adams level, a compressed format is the last thing you want. It's somewhat analogous to the music you hear from a record or tape (JPG) or a CD/DVD (TIFF, RAW, BMP). -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 14.0.1 Thunderbird 14.0 LibreOffice 3.5.2.2 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
From: "Ken Springer"
Hi, Bill, On 7/25/12 10:27 PM, Bill in Co wrote: But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). It all depends on what you want to do with the photo. If you're just going to print the photo on your inkjet, or send to Walgreens or similar, the JPG will be just fine. But, if you're a professional photographer, the Ansel Adams level, a compressed format is the last thing you want. It's somewhat analogous to the music you hear from a record or tape (JPG) or a CD/DVD (TIFF, RAW, BMP). Absolutely. You shoot and keep/archive RAW format but you deliver in JPG. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
Ken Springer wrote:
Hi, Bill, On 7/25/12 10:27 PM, Bill in Co wrote: But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). It all depends on what you want to do with the photo. If you're just going to print the photo on your inkjet, or send to Walgreens or similar, the JPG will be just fine. But, if you're a professional photographer, the Ansel Adams level, a compressed format is the last thing you want. It's somewhat analogous to the music you hear from a record or tape (JPG) or a CD/DVD (TIFF, RAW, BMP). -- Ken Or especially if you're going to blow up that print too, I guess, which I guess is what a professional photographer might also need. That, in addition to not seeing ANY artifacts, I guess, no matter what s/he does with the image. It seems it might be better to either sell two types of cameras, then, to the two different markets (pro vs amateur), OR at least offer the option to save in JPG and MP4 formats, which, I would think, would satisfy the vast majority of most customers. (I mean, the savings in disk space is so huge). I guess I can relate to this somewhat, in that whenever I work on or restore an audio file (as a hobby), I really prefer to work directly on the WAV file format, and not the compressed one it may have come to me in. And actually, if it's not in WAV format, more than likely I'll convert it to WAV, and leave it there, until all my restoration work has been applied to it, and I'm satisfied with the results. But I probably won't retain it in (uncompressed) WAV format, because I'd fast run out of disk space if I did so. I suppose if I were working in a sound studio, as a sound professional, with unlimited resources, I'd leave it that way, however. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
From: "Bill in Co"
Ken Springer wrote: Hi, Bill, On 7/25/12 10:27 PM, Bill in Co wrote: But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). It all depends on what you want to do with the photo. If you're just going to print the photo on your inkjet, or send to Walgreens or similar, the JPG will be just fine. But, if you're a professional photographer, the Ansel Adams level, a compressed format is the last thing you want. It's somewhat analogous to the music you hear from a record or tape (JPG) or a CD/DVD (TIFF, RAW, BMP). -- Ken Or especially if you're going to blow up that print too, I guess, which I guess is what a professional photographer might also need. That, in addition to not seeing ANY artifacts, I guess, no matter what s/he does with the image. It seems it might be better to either sell two types of cameras, then, to the two different markets (pro vs amateur), OR at least offer the option to save in JPG and MP4 formats, which, I would think, would satisfy the vast majority of most customers. (I mean, the savings in disk space is so huge). snip They are. Point and Shoot (P&S) and Digital Single Lense Reflex (dSLR). -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Bill in Co" Ken Springer wrote: Hi, Bill, On 7/25/12 10:27 PM, Bill in Co wrote: But is that really so bad? I think it greatly depends on the compression used. Who wants to deal with such a huge file as BMP in the first place? Or raw video, for that matter (instead of compact MP4 video!). It all depends on what you want to do with the photo. If you're just going to print the photo on your inkjet, or send to Walgreens or similar, the JPG will be just fine. But, if you're a professional photographer, the Ansel Adams level, a compressed format is the last thing you want. It's somewhat analogous to the music you hear from a record or tape (JPG) or a CD/DVD (TIFF, RAW, BMP). -- Ken Or especially if you're going to blow up that print too, I guess, which I guess is what a professional photographer might also need. That, in addition to not seeing ANY artifacts, I guess, no matter what s/he does with the image. It seems it might be better to either sell two types of cameras, then, to the two different markets (pro vs amateur), OR at least offer the option to save in JPG and MP4 formats, which, I would think, would satisfy the vast majority of most customers. (I mean, the savings in disk space is so huge). snip They are. Point and Shoot (P&S) and Digital Single Lense Reflex (dSLR). Oh. Ok, good to know. Hopefully the P&S ones can save in JPEG for stills, and MP4 for videos, although I'm guessing that the latter (video) may still be using the old AVI format (which is a pretty old format nowadays), in most instances. I haven't checked into it, because I'm not really in the market, but it's just interesting to be aware of these things. :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Industrial One wrote: Btw, I welcome you to give me any screenshot straight from a Blu-ray with true 1080p detail. That would be a sight to see. The term "1080p" doesn't infer any specific level of detail or picture quality. It can be the blurriest picture you've ever seen and still be displayed at 1080p. I think we all know what IOne means, however. (Equally, the p does not convey anything about the detail that could be extracted as a still.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a good image management app?
In message , Paul
writes: [] As for compression methods, there are "lossy" and "lossless" methods. If you have an 8 bit photo, you can use GIF as a "lossless" compression format. No information should be lost with a lossless compressor, but the level of compression to expect is relatively low (maybe 3:1 to just make up a value). Things like JPEG, on the other hand, have a [] Though "8 bit" is not actually wrong, in that GIF can use 8 (or, I think, 4 or 1) bits per pixel, I don't _think_ the colours have to be 8 bit colours: GIF selects a palette of 256 (or 16 or 2) colours, and records which one each pixel in the image is - but I think the colours can be 24 bit. For example, a picture of a sunset might have 256 shades of yellow orange and red), but each one can be store to finer detail. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|