I was a bit surprised a while ago to see that images I made in certain hues of red looked terrible here on caedes while they looked good when I viewed my original files at my comp at home. I found out some new stuff about the on-site compression of files here and made the conclusion that I would be better off submitting uncompressed files instead of my usual attempts to not overload the server with files larger then 500k.
That failed too, only showing a small, barely noticeable improvement in how much details was left in the image but still looking like it's run through a heavy blurring filter... The argument offered in the discussion seemed to indicate that it's the jpg-compression itself that is the problem, having a particular problem with red and then in particular small one pixel-with details.
The only problem I have with this is that I compress my files to the approximate same size in my mac with none of that loss of details. Is this just another example of how great Macintosh computers and software are or is the on-site compression settings possibly not fine tuned? I've kept the files here on Caedes for future reference and they still look kind of nice but not at all like I feel they should look. Ok, I'm maybe a bit picky with these things but I feel it somewhat defies the purpose of submitting images here if they are not the same as the ones I produce... I find it hard to believe, even if I don't hole it to be impossible, that it's just because I have such a wonderful piece of hardware to work with. I doubt caedes.net is run on just any tincan and would like to see the same quality here as I can see on my own comp. I don't want people to think I've lost my sight the last couple of monts, submitting unintentionally blurry images...
I've uploaded 1600x1200 copies of three files to another server so you can see the difference for your self (the last one is perhaps not that bad perhaps (probably because of the different hue) but it still shows). (I hope the links work, give me a holler if it doesn't cut it.) So here they are:
That failed too, only showing a small, barely noticeable improvement in how much details was left in the image but still looking like it's run through a heavy blurring filter... The argument offered in the discussion seemed to indicate that it's the jpg-compression itself that is the problem, having a particular problem with red and then in particular small one pixel-with details.
The only problem I have with this is that I compress my files to the approximate same size in my mac with none of that loss of details. Is this just another example of how great Macintosh computers and software are or is the on-site compression settings possibly not fine tuned? I've kept the files here on Caedes for future reference and they still look kind of nice but not at all like I feel they should look. Ok, I'm maybe a bit picky with these things but I feel it somewhat defies the purpose of submitting images here if they are not the same as the ones I produce... I find it hard to believe, even if I don't hole it to be impossible, that it's just because I have such a wonderful piece of hardware to work with. I doubt caedes.net is run on just any tincan and would like to see the same quality here as I can see on my own comp. I don't want people to think I've lost my sight the last couple of monts, submitting unintentionally blurry images...
I've uploaded 1600x1200 copies of three files to another server so you can see the difference for your self (the last one is perhaps not that bad perhaps (probably because of the different hue) but it still shows). (I hope the links work, give me a holler if it doesn't cut it.) So here they are:
Shadow Wars, Caedes version and my "original" version.
Under the Surface, Caedes version and my "original" version.
Crackled Lava Stream, Caedes version and my "original" version.
Ok, here ends of the rant of the day. ^_^
/Klas