A case against JPG

Palmist · March 15th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Good One

wera · August 14th, 2006, 05:04 PM

Thats very good *ya grumnpy old gossmer& lOl.

EDIT: seeing that your cat died made me sad

.
I like kittys.

dsp128 · December 5th, 2006, 02:31 PM

Very detailed (and I'm sure time-consuming example) Out, but I can't help thinking two things, firstly, JPG was created to fill a role which it did for over a decade when GIF / BMP were the alternative. JPG is a known lossy algorythm and is acceptable where a trade off (quality versus file size) is required.

The second thing is that in your comparisions you've zoomed in more than the human eye would when viewing an image under normal circumstances. Maybe you could do a comparitive example at your site with a random photo or two - one taken with a high quality camera and one with an average one to illustrate how the various formats compare on a genuine photo.

I'm sure that not everyone is aware of the limitations of the JGP format, but accept it as the norm for web photos / graphics etc. No doubt PNG files will take over but it will have a harder job for it to become established compared to how easy it was for JPG over the BMP for noticable quality at a fraction (approx 10% ?) of the filesize.

MitaDC · December 5th, 2006, 07:55 PM

hey guys, just remembered this article so I made a digg article about it (straight to OuT's page). Please digg on digg

Mita

Edit:

http://digg.com/design/Cool_Article_...NOT_to_use_JPG

Indiffuse · February 5th, 2007, 04:09 PM

i'm *.tif partial myself..

quickoldcar · May 12th, 2007, 01:15 AM

Nice comparison.

I always saved my work as BMP because it looked the best.

I think jpg is crap actually. Do we really really need it?

OuTpaTienT · May 13th, 2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickoldcar

Nice comparison.

I always saved my work as BMP because it looked the best.

I think jpg is crap actually. Do we really really need it?

We need it for the web. Nothing compresses image data like jpg. I agree it's crap and I hate what it does to images, but what are ya gonna do?

CujoRbd · August 5th, 2007, 03:04 PM

just adding my two cents:
I use JPEGs as final output formats, if required. I usually work in TIFF format (uncompressed) or PSD if I'm working with Photoshop. When I'm done I save in an appropriately-sized JPEG (in Photoshop I use the "save for web" and adjust settings; otherwise I adjust the quality/compression setting as desired).
If my original image comes in JPEG format, like someone scans something and sends it to me, I'll immediately re-save as TIFF or PSD to work with; this atleast reduces the amount of image noise I create by saving with LOSSY as little as possible.

and we all should respect your detailed eye, OuT, as the quality of work I have always seen you to do is excellent.

Coolzer · December 19th, 2008, 10:10 AM

I see JPEG the same way as i see MP3. not that great but the format is widley supported. I will use PNG more often now, but when using images universaly JPEG will be my friend.

pullmyfoot · December 19th, 2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolzer

I see JPEG the same way as i see MP3. not that great but the format is widley supported. I will use PNG more often now, but when using images universaly JPEG will be my friend.

I always store my mp3s at 320kbps for my ipod (limited space), which is a little like 100% quality JPEG. However I also have an uncompressed version of all my music for everything else.