Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!
Emailing Images
The Secretary at our Camera Club is adament that competition Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.
Be pleased to hear your thoughts.
Guy
Be pleased to hear your thoughts.
Guy
Of course the jpeg file should be the same quality, unless he is doing something silly like saving a thumbnail version rather than the full file. Our comp. secretary did something simillar last night and turned up with a CD of html links to images that wouldn't display. Of course they dispalyed correctly on his PC at home as that had the original files to link to....
Martin
Martin
Quote:Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.
Are you using hotmail to send the images? If so are you using the attach photo tool, or the attach file tool? If you're using the attach photo option, hotmail will down-size any large images to half their original size. That's why I always post image files using the attach file tool, as it retains the image size no matter how big it is.
Quote:Quote:Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.
Are you using hotmail to send the images? If so are you using the attach photo tool, or the attach file tool? If you're using the attach photo option, hotmail will down-size any large images to half their original size. That's why I always post image files using the attach file tool, as it retains the image size no matter how big it is.
Neither Kim or I are using Hotmail.
I've organised 3 digital competitions within the club in the last year, with most of the entries being Emailed to me....I hadn't noticed any problems in quality although, in fairness, I didn't have the original files to compare them with.
So far the replies to this thread are confirming what I thought....that using Email to submit pictures doesn't impact quality. I'd be pleased to see more replys to be conclusive.
Guy
A bit of a long shot but does your friend use OnSpeed or a similar service in an attempt to improve the performance of his internet connection ? If so, this works by compressing everything in order to reduce the volume of data sent. It even compresses JPEGs, which would, of course, have an adverse effect on quality.
Also, don't forget that when sending emails with images attached Outlook offers the opportunity of resizing the image. If the sender selects this then, again, image quality will suffer.
But, if nothing is compressing the images then quality won't suffer.
Also, don't forget that when sending emails with images attached Outlook offers the opportunity of resizing the image. If the sender selects this then, again, image quality will suffer.
But, if nothing is compressing the images then quality won't suffer.
Sounds like your ISP uses compression software for attachments.
Do a test with an image and ZIP it first before you attach it to an email, then send it to yourself.
Do the same again with the same file and don't zip it before you send it to yourself. If the files compare and look the same then its nothing to do with your ISP just his end.
jk
Do a test with an image and ZIP it first before you attach it to an email, then send it to yourself.
Do the same again with the same file and don't zip it before you send it to yourself. If the files compare and look the same then its nothing to do with your ISP just his end.
jk
Guy,
Given that the person in question also told me that zipping a jpeg can also degrade quality, I think the problem is just techno-fear. Just to set the record straight on that one, zipping a jpeg is pointless in the first place, because you won't get any more compression (it's already huffman encoded). Plus, zipping is by definition lossless, so you *always* get the exact same file out when you unzip (unless the archive got corrupted, in which case you get nothing).
Sending in competition entries on a disk would make sense if we were submitting 4M full resolution images, but for the puny 1024x768 ones that take only 300k or so, it's utter madness!
Cheers, Jon
Given that the person in question also told me that zipping a jpeg can also degrade quality, I think the problem is just techno-fear. Just to set the record straight on that one, zipping a jpeg is pointless in the first place, because you won't get any more compression (it's already huffman encoded). Plus, zipping is by definition lossless, so you *always* get the exact same file out when you unzip (unless the archive got corrupted, in which case you get nothing).
Sending in competition entries on a disk would make sense if we were submitting 4M full resolution images, but for the puny 1024x768 ones that take only 300k or so, it's utter madness!
Cheers, Jon
If you zip a Jpeg that was saved at 100%, it will shrink the size of the image but when unzipped it will put it back to 100% of the size it was to start.
Zipping at Jpeg that was saved at a high compression wont save you much space though and again it will uncompress to the size it was originally.
The guys talking rubbish... Unless there is something going on or some aspect we are not seeing.
Zipping at Jpeg that was saved at a high compression wont save you much space though and again it will uncompress to the size it was originally.
The guys talking rubbish... Unless there is something going on or some aspect we are not seeing.
Quote:But a jpeg saved at 100% if effectively a tiff n'est pas? if you zipped a compressed jpeg, you'd likely not reduce its size by much, if at all.
create a new document say 1000 by 1000 pixels of a single colour, save as TIFF and JPEG and you will see a vast size difference. The 100% setting in a JPEG compression algorithm still carries out compression such as Huffman encoding which will nearly always result in savings regardless on the image.
Mike
Quote:if you zipped a compressed jpeg, you'd likely not reduce its size by much, if at all.
I had a play with this once and found that the first time you zip it you get a very small reduction in size (97K goes down to 93K) ..not really worth it.
