glader1.jpg [1/1] Amateur animation artwork.
E. Bruce MacDougall
Is it just me, or all all of these file corrupt? I get maybe the top
1/6th , (and a bit of static).
You may want to post these over in alt.binaries.pictures.misc and/or
a.b.p.cartoons. They keep whining about wanting anime :)
MacD
carl alexander adams
I liked the posts, but in the future you may want to use another image format.
cartoon images quality suffers from the compression algorithms jpeg uses, which is much more apparent no high res monitors. (such as those on workstations)
Carl
.
Chris Lawrence Amshey
Are you certain about this damage? Couldn't it be the scanning
method? Confusedly yours,
--Chris
--
|~ / -|- 1 ams...@twain.ucs.umass.edu
|__ /_ -|- --- ams...@twain.netsys.com
\ / \ /+-- 2 Ranmakun on IRC
___/ / \__ \/
Isaac Kuo
>It had been my understanding that Jpeg was a lossless compression...
>Are you certain about this damage? Couldn't it be the scanning
>method? Confusedly yours,
> --Chris
JPEG is not only a lossy compression, but you will lose quality merely
recompressing a decompressed image (even with the same parameters!).
There is an informative JPEG FAQ posted on many of the .answers groups
periodically.
Basically, for most anime images, the gif standard is more appropriate.
Gif compresses large areas of the same color well, and is lossless,
while JPEG compresses smooth variations well but blurs edges.
--
_____ Isaac Kuo (isaa...@math.berkeley.edu)
__|_>o<_|__ "Urameshi Team no baka" --Hiei, upon entry of Kuwabara
/___________\
\=\>-----</=/ "Sugoi idea!" --Amuro Rei (from CCA)
Howard Chan
>carl alexander adams <carl...@cimarron.engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I liked the posts, but in the future you may want to use another image format.
>>cartoon images quality suffers from the compression algorithms jpeg uses, which is much more apparent no high res monitors. (such as those on workstations)
>>Carl
>>.
>It had been my understanding that Jpeg was a lossless compression...
>Are you certain about this damage? Couldn't it be the scanning
>method? Confusedly yours,
No ... JPEG compressions do lose informations ... that's why it can
compress a 1 MB GIF to a 200KB JPEG file. But I prefer JPEG over JIG
myself ... It takes less disk space and I just cannot see any major
different between GIF and JPEG images.
===========================================================
Howard Chan * Now desperately seeking my Goddess: Ayukawa
email: hyc...@unixg.ubc.ca
Q: So what are you going to do after failing all the midterms?
A: Call Belldandy and make a wish of having all the grades changed
to A's, then try to have Ayukawa study with me for the finals,
and finally splash the profs with water from the duck-drowning
spring and have Peking ducks for dinner!!
Scott Henry
In article <2khbuh$3...@nic-nac.CSU.net> gr...@futon.SFSU.EDU (Herbert Leong) writes:
grey> NOPE!!! :-)
grey> Jpeg is very much so a "lossy" compression!!!!
grey> That is why jpegs nomaly be smaller than a gif.
grey> Gifs are as best as you can get as far as "lossless" compression goes.
GIFs are *NOT* lossless compression, unless the *original* source
material had fewer than 256 colors, and this mapping was *never*
lost in the translation to the GIF image. Otherwise, you can lose a
*lot* of color information along the way.
Also, much of the (older?) scanning software out there has
*horrible* color quantization code. JPEG images (from the original
24bit scan) look 10000% better, and take up less disk space.
Now, most anime source material, if very carefully transferred,
would probably be better off in GIF than JPEG, but I don't think
that I've seen more than a few (non-original) images that follow
everything, and are necessarily better in GIF. The vast majority of
scans would be better off going originally to JPEG. Note that almost
all of the complaints about JPEG are about images that were
originally GIF (frequently poor ones at that) that are then
improperly converted to JPEG.
Also note that the JPEG was designed very much with the human visual
system in mind, and the losses are primarily in the areas that the
human visual system is weakest at detecting.
As an imperfect analogy: S-VHS makes much better looking video than
VHS, yet the chroma (color) bandwidth is *exactly* the same (and the
worst of any consumer video format). Some components of the image
are more important than others.
For an excruciatingly in-depth discussion of the merits of GIF vs
JPEG, go ask the same question in (I think) alt.graphics.picutils.
Or just check out the JPEG FAQ or look at the archives of the group.
--
More useless drivel from:
Scott Henry <sco...@sgi.com> / Just Another Anime & Manga Fan
Alan Takahashi
>ams...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Chris Lawrence Amshey) writes:
>>It had been my understanding that Jpeg was a lossless compression...
>>Are you certain about this damage? Couldn't it be the scanning
>>method? Confusedly yours,
>> --Chris
>
>same color, while jpeg compression has something to do with variations in
>color. [...]
Well, I've seen quite a bit of contradictory information come across
the net. I suppose I shouldn't add my noise, but here it is anyway. :-)
GIF (Graphics Interchange Format):
GIF is a format introduced by the CompuServe folks. It is an 8 bit
(256 colors) bitmap format that does compression by using a form
of the Lempel-Ziv compression method. This is the same method as
implemented by the Unix 'compress' program. One of the features of
this method is that they employ RLL encoding which converts repetitive
information to a length and value.
GIF file compression is lossless which means that the original 8-bit
bitmap can be retrieved in exactly the form that was originally
generated. Because of the large areas of block color (commonly found
in animation pictures), the RLL compression works nicely on it.
JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group):
JPEG is actually a standards committee which came up with a standard
format to process still images. The format commonly used in the
public domain is also called JPEG. A JPEG file is a 24 bit (millions
of colors) bitmap which uses a new method to do image compression.
JPEG can represent images in enormous detail, but the human eye has
limits. In particular, the eye cannot handle minor variations in
color in adjacent areas. JPEG takes advantage of these known limits
to *REMOVE* color and other information from the file. This allows
JPEG to have a large compression ratio, but also loses information
in the process. Depending on the quality setting used, the eye may
be able to see some degradation, but not much. Higher quality settings
produce an image where the eye can't see the defects. JPEG is a
'lossy' method.
Note that if your original image (say, from a scanner) is a 24 bit
image, then converting it to JPEG will lose some info. Converting
it to GIF will throw out a *large* amount of info, since GIF is only
an 8-bit format to begin with. However, JPEG has a hard time with
large color blocks because it doesn't use an RLL-like method.
My own preference would be to create the original files in JPEG. Generating
a GIF from them won't be very hard on the image. On the other hand,
converting a GIF to a JPEG is harder since GIF has already thrown out
most of the info that compress well in JPEG...
BTW, there *is* a lossless JPEG format out there, but it's intended for
high quality graphics manipulation and is only available in
high level commercial packages...
'Nuff said? :-)
-----
Alan Takahashi UUCP : ......!{portal,ames}!ntmtv!takahash
Northern Telecom Inc. ...!uunet/
Mountain View, CA INTERNET: taka...@ntmtv.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you need to knock on wood is when you realize the world's
composed of aluminum and vinyl." -- Flugg's Law
The Rose of Aphrodite
wrote:
> myself ... It takes less disk space and I just cannot see any major
> different between GIF and JPEG images.
Obviously you don't have a 24-bit display. The difference is significant,
especially when you want true color images. I use JPEG to store all of my
24-bit images simply because of the space angle and the better quality.
Mike
___
__/__ \_.___ . . . .. ..._ __The_Rose_of_Aphrodite_________
__/____ \ \.../\__ _.. .Michael Kim at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
/ \ . \./ "Where is is is and is is not what it seems"
\ \_._._/\__ _.. . le...@imsa.edu
\......\____\_____ ____ __ _ .. . . . ki...@husc.harvard.edu
Web stuff: <A HREF="http://gluon.imsa.edu/~leda/leda.html">Click Me</A>
MD
carl alexander adams <carl...@cimarron.engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
Actually that is what i thought too for a while there. Then i figured out
how to turn the monitor to 24bit (it's hooked up to a sgi, so it's not
that easy). but given the choice between 256colors, and 16.7mill, i'll
take the latter. If you don't have a 24 bit monitor, and you haven't
converted the pics to 256 (i use xv to vew, and convert), then the quality
really suffers. Jpeg can work with anime, (most anime), if it's not
set to a too tight of a compression, then you loose the smoothness in color,
but otherwise with a lower compression scheme it works ok, and with much
better ratios then gif files, and a much wider color bandwith.
Peter Gruhn
Sc> material had fewer than 256 colors, and this mapping was *never*
Then in that case, _nothing_ is lossless compression, because in the end
they all tend to deal with at most 24bit rgb which does merely a fair
job of desribing the colours we can see. And ASA4 transparency film at
sheets of 24"x36" is not lossless.
The deal here for people who don't want to be confused by Sc is that
Yeah, if your scanning from a real life image, an 8bit GIF image is
killing colour depth of the real thing. I guess I'm supposed to assume
that JPEG is inherently better because it uses 24bit. Neither here nor
there on Sc's arguement, because both quantize spacially (pixels) and
colourwise in terms of colour depth and gamut covered.
GIF is lossless in that it is not a scanner format or any such bull. It
is merely a way of taking an image meant to be displayed at 8 bits of
colour and an arbitrary number of pixels and sticking said image into as
small a file as possible. GIF is inherently 8bit. If you quantize down
to its level, that is your doing. GIF will not even pretend to be able
to compress a 24bit image.
Sc> *horrible* color quantization code. JPEG images (from the original
Sc> 24bit scan) look 10000% better, and take up less disk space.
Sometimes.
Sc> Now, most anime source material, if very carefully transferred,
Sc> would probably be better off in GIF than JPEG, but I don't think
That's why the 'P' in JPEG stands for 'photographic'. Unless you want
_big_ and abused files, flat colour area artwork can grow quite
dramatically under reasonable JPEQ 'quality' percentages.
Your best bet
is to test your images on both formats until you are familiar with how
they both behave with your source material and the amount of quality
that you want to preserve.
Sc> scans would be better off going originally to JPEG. Note that almost
Sc> all of the complaints about JPEG are about images that were
That is not true.
You work for SGI? Is like the whole company so weird, or are you just a
manual writer?
... Boku wa hon desu.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Peter Gruhn
To> info on JPEG good and bad points, go and check the JPEG FAQ in
To> comp.binaries.pic- tures.utilities. Or for those whose newsserver don't
As an aside, I find GIF easier to pixel level retouch. But that just
might be my skill set.
Peter Gruhn
IK> appropriate. Gif compresses large areas of the same color well, and is
IK> lossless, while JPEG compresses smooth variations well but blurs edges.
While this is true, a caveat eh? It's those areas of flat colour that
make all the difference. If you must, think of GIF as not entirely
unlike a simple run length thing. If it would do well represented as
"maxint pixels of blue" then GIF is a good guess. The caveat?
Oh yeah, this: Many of the Anime images that come across are scans from
pretty watercolours and stuff. I've got a favourite little picture of
Madoka all done up in orange and stuff that would probably make a much
tinier JPEG, as any given pixel is different from its neighbours. But as
another said, no use JPEGging it now that I have it in GIF. It would
probably kill her eyes at this stage.