Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 07, 2016, 04:20:25 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Quality of screenshots?!  (Read 5406 times)

till.staetter

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Quality of screenshots?!
« on: October 08, 2005, 12:04:09 PM »
Before I was using Screenshot Captor I used "Hardcopy" (www.hardcopy.de).
The reason why I changed the programme is the build in image explore in SC.

BUT: The quality of the images shot with Hardcopy seems to be better, even when I set the compression level in SC to "min".  :-\

Are there any plans to improve the quality of the images in the future?

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2005, 12:12:29 PM »

there is no reason that screenshot captor shouldnt be saving 100% pure non-lossy image files depending on the format and compression, so this shouldn't be an issue if you want perfect captures..

what file format are you using?
i may have the compression settings at minimum not really at minimum, when you tell me the file format ill go check.

till.staetter

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2005, 12:23:08 PM »
I've been using the *.jpg-format because it's the only format which is available in both programs.

I set Hardcopy to save the files in the same directory as SC. In the internal viewer of SC the quality of the images were nearly the same.
But in an external viewer ("Image Eye" from www.fmjsoft.com) I saw the difference. I didn't compare Hardcopys own format with an
*.tiff-file from SC.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2005, 12:30:06 PM »
that makes some sense, jpg is a lossy format, and i might have the minimum compression setting still too compressed; let me look into fixing that.  jpg is not a great format for screenshots because it tends to get noisy when you compress it.  png and tiff are better.  but minimum compression setting should result in a very good file, so let me check into that and post back in a few min.

brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2005, 12:39:58 PM »
I've been using the *.jpg-format because it's the only format which is available in both programs.
If Hardcopy does not support PNG I wouldn't use that anyway ;) PNG is WAY better for screenshots than JPG.

Thankfully you discovered a really great program now, just play around a bit with Screenshot Captor and discover all the nice possibilities!

@mouser: google for "free snagit alternative" - it does NOT yet show your program in the first 10 search results! Since it's so great and free we need to change that, I suggest you add some words in the description on your page.

Let me start: Screenshot Captor is a great and free alternative to SnagIt, I really like it a lot!


till.staetter

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2005, 12:58:18 PM »
Quote
If Hardcopy does not support PNG I wouldn't use that anyway  PNG is WAY better for screenshots than JPG.

It doesn't support *.png but *.bmp an *.tiff. BMP is losless enough  ;)

Quote
Thankfully you discovered a really great program now, just play around a bit with Screenshot Captor and discover all the nice possibilities!

I know about that and I'm very proud off it  :) ! I wouldn't be here if I didn't like its possibilities!



brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2005, 01:06:24 PM »
Quote
If Hardcopy does not support PNG I wouldn't use that anyway  PNG is WAY better for screenshots than JPG.
It doesn't support *.png but *.bmp an *.tiff. BMP is losless enough  ;)
Well, TIFF is rather dead and BMP is far worse than PNG, you noticed the difference in size, yes? ;)

till.staetter

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2005, 04:22:13 PM »
Hi!

I just updated Image Eye and opened a screenshot in *.png-format.

The quality is perfect!

So I can live with the noisy effect with *.jpg-files ;)

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2005, 04:31:30 PM »
i still think a jpg with minimal compression should probably be perfect (although big);
i checked and minimal compression setting is being done properly, but there are some other settings for things like smoothing that could cause maybe some differences.  if you feel like emailing me the jpgs made by hardcopy vs. screenshot captor plus instructs on how to see the difference, i might be able to experiment more.

till.staetter

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2005, 05:11:20 PM »
Hi!

A few minutes ago I've downloaded your latest release and compared both programs
again. I don't know if you've changed some settings but now I can't discover any
considerable differences between both programs any more.

If you didn't made any changes than it was the weather here :)

I can send you the screenshots if you want, but I think it's wasted time!

By the way: today I've mentioned your fantastic support in the "efb.nu" (Essential Freebies) forum and recommended
a donation ;)


mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Quality of screenshots?!
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2005, 05:27:30 PM »
first, THANK YOU for the recommendation and kind words  :)

i actually DID make a change to the program if you were using the "save copy as" function to save jpg files; it now defaults to the compression level set in options but allows you to override it.  the older version may have defaulted to a higher compression rate.

i'm glad to hear that the problem seems to be gone.  as mentioned earlier, png is a favorite for screenshots just because it does so much better at compressing them without introducing noise (jpg is great for photographs).