Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 2 total users online
- 44 users active today
- 259162 total members
- +show users online
Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.
Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> quality issue
quality issue
.TORGAN
10/06/07 3:29 PM GMT
Hi all. I am new here but i have noticed that the resolution quality of peoples art is downgraded a bit. I have changed my work from bitmap to JPEG myself to reduce the size but on my computer the quality is much more detailed than on this site. Is it only my imagination or maybe the fault of explorer. Thank`s.
0∈
[?]
IT IS MAGIC TO GIVE UP ALL FOR THIS ONE DREAM THAT NOONE CAN SEE... BUT YOU.
IT IS TRAGIC... WHEN IT DOESN`T COME TRUE.
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
Hi Torgan,
The site uses an automatic script to produce the different sizes, so it actually re-jpegs your original image. Alot of people have had better results using PNG to upload which avoids the double jpeg issue. On the other hand if part of your problem is a color shift and possibly a flattening out of color range, the problem is likely the color profile the image is being saved as. The same script also uses the "sRGB" color profile, so converting your image to that profile before uploading will fix that.
The site uses an automatic script to produce the different sizes, so it actually re-jpegs your original image. Alot of people have had better results using PNG to upload which avoids the double jpeg issue. On the other hand if part of your problem is a color shift and possibly a flattening out of color range, the problem is likely the color profile the image is being saved as. The same script also uses the "sRGB" color profile, so converting your image to that profile before uploading will fix that.
0∈
[?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"
Hi animaniactoo. Thank`s for the info. In fact the first time i have uploaded a JPEG of around 150 KB that has been downgraded to 70KB on this site. Yesterday i have uploaded the same graphic design in PNG of 1500 KB which has been again downgraded to 70 KB. My problem is that one is putting a lot of work into something to achieve certain quality that is destroyed later by this automatic script.
It would be better to say straight away that one can not upload his work above for example 200 kb. Instead of destroing peoples work. That would solve the problem.
Any way. Thank`s again.
It would be better to say straight away that one can not upload his work above for example 200 kb. Instead of destroing peoples work. That would solve the problem.
Any way. Thank`s again.
0∈
[?]
IT IS MAGIC TO GIVE UP ALL FOR THIS ONE DREAM THAT NOONE CAN SEE... BUT YOU.
BUT IT IS TRAGIC... WHEN IT DOESN`T COME TRUE.
By the way. I like that motto of yours. wasn`t it John Major who said that ?
0∈
[?]
IT IS MAGIC TO GIVE UP ALL FOR THIS ONE DREAM THAT NOONE CAN SEE... BUT YOU.
BUT IT IS TRAGIC... WHEN IT DOESN`T COME TRUE.
your image, TORGAN, contains a lot a dark areas which are responsible for the compression ratio achieved in the jpeg ... a more color-robust detailed image would probably be a better test of the system
the best thing is to pass the original uploaded size (when requested) to the end-user as a copy ... this allows the artist to be directly responsible for the quality of the uploaded size
it makes no sense (to me) to re-jpeg the original upload when the original is being kept in the database regardless ...and .. the re-jpegged size doesn't always go down, it goes up as well, without improving quality ... so a space savings is not the reasoning behind it
just my $0.02
the best thing is to pass the original uploaded size (when requested) to the end-user as a copy ... this allows the artist to be directly responsible for the quality of the uploaded size
it makes no sense (to me) to re-jpeg the original upload when the original is being kept in the database regardless ...and .. the re-jpegged size doesn't always go down, it goes up as well, without improving quality ... so a space savings is not the reasoning behind it
just my $0.02
0∈
[?]
˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜