Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Simple Photo Resizer - Please Give Feedback
Renegade:
Congratulations on your new application, Renegade ;-)
While in theory I agree with many of your point of views, I simply cannot understand the reason for this one:
... JPG ratios? 80% is good enough. -Renegade (January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
In my opinion, 80% is never good enough. Especially the iris in the eye will need more, I think. Well, in fact the "80%" is the very reason I haven't tested your program. But of course, the program was not made for me but for your wife ;-)
-Curt (January 26, 2011, 02:59 AM)
--- End quote ---
Years and years of experience. :)
80% for JPGs is almost indistinguishable from 100%, and the file size savings are massive in comparison.
Remember, this is designed for people to produce an "end product" picture that's going to be used somewhere for viewing, not for processing again.
But, the proof is in the pudding. Here are 2 pictures, creatively named A and B. (Down below - scroll then scroll.)
Look at each one quickly to see if you can tell the difference, then take a closer look and see if you can tell the difference. Make sure to view them at the same position on your screen as viewing angles can shift perception.
Scroll more...
Scroll more...
Scroll more...
Scroll more...
A
B
Have a look, then tell me which one is 80% and which is 100%. The 80% file is 285 KB while the 100% file is 890 KB.
Make sure to not look at the file size if you download them as that defeats the purpose.
*If* you can tell the difference, note just how difficult it is to do so.
285 vs. 890. :) That's why I chose 80.
(edit -- change images to full to avoid load time bias)
nudone:
I think this type of image works fine for the compression you've set. I can see very tiny artifacts introduced into the face and shirt on image A - but that's because I know what to look for when doing these types of comparison.
But, the point is, without being able to do such a comparison I would be perfectly happy with image A - the difference is insignificant anyway.
I think for the general purpose the program will be used for it's worth that amount of compression. If people were trying to reduce images that contained more solid blocks of colour and hard edges then 80% is a bit too much, more like 90 or even 95 would be about right - but, again, that's not really the intended audience and use.
Renegade:
I think this type of image works fine for the compression you've set. I can see very tiny artifacts introduced into the face and shirt on image A - but that's because I know what to look for when doing these types of comparison.
But, the point is, without being able to do such a comparison I would be perfectly happy with image A - the difference is insignificant anyway.
I think for the general purpose the program will be used for it's worth that amount of compression. If people were trying to reduce images that contained more solid blocks of colour and hard edges then 80% is a bit too much, more like 90 or even 95 would be about right - but, again, that's not really the intended audience and use.
-nudone (January 26, 2011, 04:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
And the resident expert steps in~! :D
Being an expert as you are, I'm quite sure that you're more easily going to see those quality reductions than your average Joe.
And yes -- for certain types of images, 80 is going to be low. But, for your normal photograph taken on a digital camera by Joe Average, you're not really going to get those kinds of hard lines and solids. Which is why I went with 80. It preserves enough quality, and gets the file size down to a quickly emailed or quickly uploaded size.
It's one of those things that I just figured isn't worth bothering with because it's only going to confuse people. How many people actually understand much about compression, let alone lossey compression which is far more complicated.
To put something like that in, I think a simple rating of high, medium, and low quality would be more than enough. High at 90%, medium at 80%, and low at 60%.
nudone -- what %'s would you use?
nudone:
I don't think it's a bad thing just to stick at 80% and leave it at that.
If you think it's worth making it more complicated, the range you've said sounds fine. Is there any chance of making it give you a "live" preview of the quality before the image is saved?
If I was going to add anything to the compression values I might add 95%. I just find that when I'm saving out various images for web use, I'll start with a .png (perfect quality) then compare it with several jpeg compressions. I might get away with using as much as 50% compression on the (very) rare occasion, very often I'll find 90% is too much and resort to 95% simply because it will give a result that is almost indistinguishable from the original .png but without the file size. Nothing surprising there, of course, that's just my view on 95% - you get a near perfect image BUT you have reduced the file "weight" a bit - which can't be bad.
Having said all that, you are reducing the dimensions of the image too so my 95% example may be of little relevance.
Providing drag and drop functions may be more handy really (if it doesn't do that already).
edit: just tested it - it does do drag and drop. excellent.
Renegade:
edit: just tested it - it does do drag and drop. excellent.
-nudone (January 26, 2011, 05:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
:D Hahahah~! That's the ONLY way to load an image with it. I figured clicking & browsing is simply too slow & difficult. And, it needs another button that clutters up the UI.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version