Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
the canvas.

That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
that other editors make texting hard)

paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
need a dedicated text messaging app.

You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

that's called annotating, not texting.

texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.

Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

there was.

I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
child like urge to comment.
As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
and criticize it, just as you are doing here.

when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
criticize me for doing what you normally do.

you're a hypocrite, among other things.

In message , Tony Cooper
writes:
[]
He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

WORD'S?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I would seriously doubt if anyone was confused by the OP's error.

I suspect you're right.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're playing a killer monster, be very quiet. -
Anthony Hopkins, RT 2016/10/22-28

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
the same image each time, even if you set JPG
compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
software.) JPG always loses data with each save.

I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case, what
does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're playing a killer monster, be very quiet. -
Anthony Hopkins, RT 2016/10/22-28

On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
said:

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
the same image each time, even if you set JPG
compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
software.) JPG always loses data with each save.

I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?

It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.

Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
file size might have grown.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message 20170215163740260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes:
On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
said:

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
the same image each time, even if you set JPG
compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
software.) JPG always loses data with each save.

I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?

It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.

Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
file size might have grown.

So are you saying there are two different _sorts_ of data compression
applied when you save a JPEG?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:54:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
the canvas.

That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
that other editors make texting hard)

paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
need a dedicated text messaging app.

You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

that's called annotating, not texting.

texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.

Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

there was.

I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
child like urge to comment.
As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
and criticize it, just as you are doing here.

when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
criticize me for doing what you normally do.

Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

*Unless they brag about how good their English is.

What lie? What was twisted?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:01:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Tony Cooper
writes:
[]
He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

WORD'S?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

It's a fair cop, Guv.


I would seriously doubt if anyone was confused by the OP's error.

I suspect you're right.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2017-02-16 01:27:07 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
said:

In message 20170215163740260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes:
On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
said:

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
the same image each time, even if you set JPG
compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
software.) JPG always loses data with each save.

I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?

It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.

Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
file size might have grown.

So are you saying there are two different _sorts_ of data compression
applied when you save a JPEG?

No.

I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
settings made in the software. One might not initially detect that
compression or image degradation, but it is always there and will be
exbacerbated with subsequent saves/resaves/saves as. JPEG files are
always lossy.

Different software might express how compression is selected
differently. Some software might adjust compression by setting alleged
quality of the saved JPEG as a percentage of quality; i.e. 100% not
meaning that there will be no compression, but just the least
compression that particular software is capable of. There will always
be compression, it is in the nature of JPEG files which are a lossy
format. That is equally true of software which expresses compression or
file save quality in other ways, as a percentage of compression, or on
a quality scale of 1-10. Compression of any image file
saved/resaved/saved as JPEG will always exist. The degree of
compression can be adjusted, but the damage and degradation is
cumulative for each subsequent JPEG save.

If you want to maintain image quality through editing or adjustment
start with RAW image files and work on lossless file types such as
TIFF, PSD, or even PNG. Only once you are done editing/adjusting a RAW
or lossless image file, should you save a JPEG for whatever purpose you
had in mind.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best
freebie
editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
that other editors make texting hard)

paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that,
you need a dedicated text messaging app.

You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other
the English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

that's called annotating, not texting.

texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as
annotating.

Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

there was.

I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
child like urge to comment.
As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
and criticize it, just as you are doing here.

when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
criticize me for doing what you normally do.

Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

and in fact, i do know better.

as usual, you are butting in just to attack.

the person in question is a well known troll who lives in the santa
cruz mountains and is a native english speaker. he regularly spoofs his
address, however, his style is unmistakable and easily outed.

both savageduck and myself know him quite well from other newsgroups.

*Unless they brag about how good their English is.

What lie? What was twisted?

everything.

On 2017-02-16 01:48:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:54:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
the canvas.

That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
that other editors make texting hard)

paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
need a dedicated text messaging app.

You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

that's called annotating, not texting.

texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.

Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

there was.

I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
child like urge to comment.
As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
and criticize it, just as you are doing here.

when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
criticize me for doing what you normally do.

Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

The OP is not Dutch. He lives in Santa Clara County, in the hills above
San Jose, and claims to have an Ivy League education.

He is a well known Nym shifter and ISP falsifier. He can be found
voicing his opinion using various nyms in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.mobile.ipad, and comp.mobile.android.

Sometimes he is genuinely seeking advice and help, and I am prepared to
render whatever advice and assistance I can, until the thread degrades
into a troll fest.

*Unless they brag about how good their English is.

Without claiming Dutch nationality, he has already made that boast in
other NG's, along with many other types of unsubstantiated boast.

What lie? What was twisted?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"PeterN" wrote


| Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.
|
|
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/
|

I still don't really get it. It's the term itself.
Does it refer to the image as a 2-D space?
If I look in PSP I see resizing the canvas. It
seems to mean the same as creating a new
image and pasting the image onto that, which
is what I would do. So when Stijn refers to
"adding a canvas" does he mean that --
creating a larger background around the
original image?

In article 2017021518133987929-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

The OP is not Dutch. He lives in Santa Clara County, in the hills above
San Jose, and claims to have an Ivy League education.

He is a well known Nym shifter and ISP falsifier. He can be found
voicing his opinion using various nyms in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.mobile.ipad, and comp.mobile.android.

and the numerous (often irrelevant) groups to which he crossposts.

Sometimes he is genuinely seeking advice and help, and I am prepared to
render whatever advice and assistance I can, until the thread degrades
into a troll fest.

which is usually rather quickly because he ignores the advice and
starts ranting.

*Unless they brag about how good their English is.

Without claiming Dutch nationality, he has already made that boast in
other NG's, along with many other types of unsubstantiated boast.

indeed he has.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:49 -0500, PeterN wrote:

Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY

Here is an example of an original file, and then the file with a canvas
batch added automatically by Irvanview, and then that file annotated in
three ways in Paint.NET (which does those three annotations better than any
other free program alive that I know of).

Please note I'm explaining below all the steps I do with batches of files
that contain hundreds upon hundreds of files - but in this particular case,
we're only working on a single file.

STARTING POINT:
1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-med...1486597218.jpg

1. This is the original 1,439KB photo that I saved from the above URL:
http://i.cubeupload.com/DAZw1N.jpg
a. Irfanview: File Open fname.jpg
b. Irfanview: File Thumbnails
c. Thumbnails: Options Select all
d. Thumbnails: File JPG Lossless Operations Lossless rotation with
selected files
e. Irfanview: File Start batch dialog with selected files
f. In the batch dialog, I set the "Options" to resize to 800x600 and to
save at 80% Quality (and nothing else). I also set the "Advanced" options
to add a white canvas to the bottom. If I want, I can set a trillion other
options, but I won't bother explaining them here.

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Options":
http://i.cubeupload.com/l6gNYt.jpg

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Advanced" options:
http://i.cubeupload.com/sz8Zar.jpg

2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 &
Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom:
http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg
It is now 149 KB.

3. This is the photo after annotating with Paint.NET:
http://i.cubeupload.com/wpMEIS.jpg
It is now 187 KB.

4. This is the photo re-re-sized by Irfanview at 80% Quality:
http://i.cubeupload.com/tYHmt8.jpg
It is now 184 KB.

Hmmm... again, it didn't show the almost doubling of size I normally see.

I think the starting point photo is the difference, since I normally start
with my own photos from my own camera, and not with photos from the web!

I need to do the test again, but with my own photos!

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:49 -0500, PeterN wrote:

Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY

Here is an example of an original file, and then the file with a canvas
batch added automatically by Irvanview, and then that file annotated in
three ways in Paint.NET (which does those three annotations better than any
other free program alive that I know of).

Please note I'm explaining below all the steps I do with batches of files
that contain hundreds upon hundreds of files - but in this particular case,
we're only working on a single file.

STARTING POINT:
1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-med...1486597218.jpg

1. This is the original 1,439KB photo that I saved from the above URL:
http://i.cubeupload.com/DAZw1N.jpg
a. Irfanview: File Open fname.jpg
b. Irfanview: File Thumbnails
c. Thumbnails: Options Select all
d. Thumbnails: File JPG Lossless Operations Lossless rotation with
selected files
e. Irfanview: File Start batch dialog with selected files
f. In the batch dialog, I set the "Options" to resize to 800x600 and to
save at 80% Quality (and nothing else). I also set the "Advanced" options
to add a white canvas to the bottom. If I want, I can set a trillion other
options, but I won't bother explaining them here.

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Options":
http://i.cubeupload.com/l6gNYt.jpg

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Advanced" options:
http://i.cubeupload.com/sz8Zar.jpg

2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 &
Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom:
http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg
It is now 149 KB.

3. This is the photo after annotating with Paint.NET:
http://i.cubeupload.com/wpMEIS.jpg
It is now 187 KB.

4. This is the photo re-re-sized by Irfanview at 80% Quality:
http://i.cubeupload.com/tYHmt8.jpg
It is now 184 KB.

Hmmm... again, it didn't show the almost doubling of size I normally see.

I think the starting point photo is the difference, since I normally start
with my own photos from my own camera, and not with photos from the web!

I need to do the test again, but with my own photos!

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:56:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

It's interesting that IV seems to have brightened
the image saved, while PN didn't.

Thank you for noticing that anomaly.
I think it's because I have the "Auto adjust colors" option set in
Irfanview by default!
http://i.cubeupload.com/kB1aI5.jpg