Converting a file to JPEG without making it screwed up?

Sophist	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #20 on: January 04, 2007, 03:04:43 pm »
Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Posts: 775	it is because digital cams actually photograph impressions, not exact colors which does in fact make it ideal but... its easy to fall into the trap of working with JPGs, and resaving them everytime you save your JPG and reopen it youll have lost color data again Logged
Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Posts: 775	My Child Is Student of The Month at Neverland Ranch!

RiisnÃ¦s	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #21 on: January 04, 2007, 06:15:27 pm »
odens knop Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1608	Quote from: Infinitus on January 04, 2007, 03:00:05 pm Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb! Why do you believe that? JPEG is actually idealy suited to digital photographs. I think a .PNG camera would be way better, no color loss and stuff when resizing. Logged
	\|LEUS HERTAN MINAT\|

Moon_child	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #22 on: January 04, 2007, 08:46:40 pm »
Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 6206	Quote from: Mitsuu on January 04, 2007, 02:47:46 am oh crap, im too late. i did that too. Thanks for the effort. Logged
Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 6206

Infinitus

Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ...

« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2007, 10:23:46 pm »

Reputation: +3/-0
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 6629

Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 06:15:27 pm

Quote from: Infinitus on January 04, 2007, 03:00:05 pm
Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm
I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb!

Why do you believe that? JPEG is actually idealy suited to digital photographs.

I think a .PNG camera would be way better, no color loss and stuff when resizing.

Its somewhat more complex then just I LIKE PNG!, different situations require different specifications - PNG may be excellent for computer graphics, but not so for photographic images.

Logged

RiisnÃ¦s	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #24 on: January 05, 2007, 03:15:58 pm »
odens knop Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1608	Quote from: Infinitus on January 04, 2007, 10:23:46 pm Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 06:15:27 pm Quote from: Infinitus on January 04, 2007, 03:00:05 pm Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb! Why do you believe that? JPEG is actually idealy suited to digital photographs. I think a .PNG camera would be way better, no color loss and stuff when resizing. Its somewhat more complex then just I LIKE PNG!, different situations require different specifications - PNG may be excellent for computer graphics, but not so for photographic images. Sorry Infinitus I bet you're right but I've been brainwashed to much by these forums to pick .JPEG over .PNG. Logged
	\|LEUS HERTAN MINAT\|

Dayjo shut the fuck up donny.	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #25 on: January 05, 2007, 04:35:29 pm »
hungry.. Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 3602	Generally speaking PNG is great when it comes to web-based images because it generally has a good file-size as well as a good colour range. However, specifically in photography JPEG is definitely a preferred format, especially because you're able to set quality levels in terms of colours and size etc. Logged
hungry.. Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 3602	www.dayjo.org

RiisnÃ¦s	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #26 on: January 05, 2007, 06:32:03 pm »
odens knop Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1608	But woulnd't it be possible to have the camera always use highest resolution and still use that really small amount of space? Logged
	\|LEUS HERTAN MINAT\|

Kirby	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #27 on: January 05, 2007, 07:12:15 pm »
	Not with PNG. It uses a good deal of space when it comes to photography. I would take JPEG for photography any day. Logged

NeoGeo-x	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #28 on: January 06, 2007, 06:59:33 pm »
I choose you, Zorua! Reputation: +1/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1945	Quote from: Kirby on January 05, 2007, 07:12:15 pm Not with PNG. It uses a good deal of space when it comes to photography. I would take JPEG for photography any day. Kirby's right on this. This whole myth about "JPEG promotes major quality loss" needs to be debunked; if you convert images to JPG using professional software (or anything comparable), only a minimal amount of data would be lost. In fact, the data loss would be noticeable after very careful examination. PNG has no data loss at all, that's true..but filesizes will be blown way out of proportion leaving people with very little space on their cameras, which - needless to say - results in the dissatisfying situation that fewer pictures can be taken. Logged
	My name is Pitt

Venus	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #29 on: January 06, 2007, 10:21:55 pm »
IBV Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1075	Add to that the fact that the camera also has a certain loss, and without doubt will make the image at least a little lossy (and not representing the actual color of the object). RAW or PNG in photography only makes sense for very high quality cameras for high-quality needs, OR if you have a reaaaaally huge memory and relative low resolution on the camera (I mean, in that case you can still fit loads of pictures). Though, if you use JPEG, as soon as you get the JPEG out of the camera, you should work with it in a lossless file format (preferably in a free format, and the standard format for your graphics-editor), and keep backups of it in lossless. Then when you're ready to release it you can use a single lossy compression for a web-version (the picture embedded in web-pages to help 56k-ers), and/or perhaps an alternative lossless version for download managers. Logged
IBV Reputation: +0/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 1075	My signature is empty.

MG-Zero	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #30 on: January 13, 2007, 05:31:05 pm »
Doesn't afraid of anything Reputation: +42/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 7002	Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb! my dad's camera actually uses .raw, which means no color loss...of course, if you don't have a program that can read .raw such as photoshop, then you're getting a jpeg. Logged
	i love big weenies and i cannot lie

cb43569

Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ...

« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2007, 05:45:54 pm »

Reputation: +0/-0
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2890

Quote from: MasterGohan Zero on January 13, 2007, 05:31:05 pm

Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm
I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb!

my dad's camera actually uses .raw, which means no color loss...of course, if you don't have a program that can read .raw such as photoshop, then you're getting a jpeg.

That's gonna use a lot of space on the memory card... anyway, I should mention, most cameras use JPG because it's smaller, and also because cameras DO NOT CAPTURE EVERY LITTLE PIXEL. They photograph impressions, more like, like someone already said!

Logged

MG-Zero	Re: Converting a file to JPEG without making it ... « Reply #32 on: January 13, 2007, 06:05:13 pm »
Doesn't afraid of anything Reputation: +42/-0 Offline Gender: Posts: 7002	Quote from: cb43569 on January 13, 2007, 05:45:54 pm Quote from: MasterGohan Zero on January 13, 2007, 05:31:05 pm Quote from: Linky on January 04, 2007, 01:16:11 pm I think it's stupid that like all digital cameras today use .jpg! It's so dumb! my dad's camera actually uses .raw, which means no color loss...of course, if you don't have a program that can read .raw such as photoshop, then you're getting a jpeg. That's gonna use a lot of space on the memory card... anyway, I should mention, most cameras use JPG because it's smaller, and also because cameras DO NOT CAPTURE EVERY LITTLE PIXEL. They photograph impressions, more like, like someone already said! oh you have no idea...but that's why it has the option to switch to bmp, jpeg, tif, tga etc =) Logged
	i love big weenies and i cannot lie

Author Topic: Converting a file to JPEG without making it screwed up? (Read 3444 times)

Kirby