Need to simulate VERY bad jpeg compression

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.

One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and try to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve.

Try to use "Save for Web" (Ctrl + Alt + Shift + S)

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and try to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:52:03 +0100, "steve"
scribbled:

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max.
Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

You could look at the little words on the JPEG Options screen. Like the one that says Quality which you're setting to MAXIMUM. Or you could look right above the slider where it says SMALL FILE or LARGE FILE..... Now try and guess which one would have the most compression... something small or something large....

It may not be fair to the jpeg format to try to make
it look worse that it would appear at PS's greatest compression, but...

If you want to highlight it's weaknesses, be sure to
show a magnified view of the image choosing areas of high contrast between objects in the picture. Also, you might choose a photo that starts with lots of high contrast details, like architecture or a black and white drawing, rather than a photo of smooth transitions of color and contrast which are JPEG's forte. The edge of a building against the sky or a shadow against a light background will demonstrate
artifact.

You can make the artifact clearer by magnifying the view to about 400%, because the "blockiness" of JPEG is very clear at this level.

Also, if you toy with the Levels or Contrast settings, you can actually demonstrate pattern of little squares of pixels within which JPEG works.

JPEG may be better than you think.

"steve" wrote in message

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same

JPEG

picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably

small

compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is

bad

enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and

then

save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and

try

to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve.

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and try to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Learn how to read. That slider is set at maximum QUALITY, not maximum COMPRESSION...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same

JPEG

picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably

small

compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over

compressed

version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is

bad

enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and

then

save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to

myself,

all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I

will

have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and

try

to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Learn how to read. That slider is set at maximum QUALITY, not maximum COMPRESSION...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Sadly, it seems there are still some people on this NG that are so far up their own arseholes they prefer to give out smart put-downs rather than advice. Johan, you knew EXACTLY what I meant in my post above; either that or you are surely as thick as pigshit as you are appearing now.

You would do well not to take people's posts to literally, then you would look like an ignorant gobshite in font of everyone.

Thanks to the other people here who have given me tips. It seems a shame that your group has been infiltrated by elitist imbecile's like Johan.

Anyway Johan, thanks ever so much for your quality input to this thread. Perhaps you would have been more help to me if you had put a pullet through your ignorant skull.

"steve" wrote in message

Sadly, it seems there are still some people on this NG that are so far up their own arseholes they prefer to give out smart put-downs rather than advice. Johan, you knew EXACTLY what I meant in my post above; either that or you are surely as thick as pigshit as you are appearing now.
You would do well not to take people's posts to literally, then you would look like an ignorant gobshite in font of everyone.

Thanks to the other people here who have given me tips. It seems a shame that your group has been infiltrated by elitist imbecile's like Johan.
Anyway Johan, thanks ever so much for your quality input to this thread. Perhaps you would have been more help to me if you had put a pullet

through

your ignorant skull.

Sadly for you,it looks like Johan is right: Maximum means minimun compression.
Your question simply shows you don't understand or you cannot read the JPEG compression options
No "arsholes", "pigshit", "ignorant gobshite","elitist imbecile" will make
you look any smarter now.
Unless you have the magic version of PS, when you compress a JPEG to the max it looks like crap.
Maybe you image was so bad to start with?

Stephan

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and try to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve.

once you have compressed the jpeg ( at minimum quality) - open it again convert and save the file as a new psd document - open that and resave it as a jpeg ( max compression) repeat till pure crap is produced.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:49:20 +0100, "steve"
scribbled:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same

JPEG

picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably

small

compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over

compressed

version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is

bad

enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and

then

save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to

myself,

all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I

will

have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and

try

to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Learn how to read. That slider is set at maximum QUALITY, not maximum COMPRESSION...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Sadly, it seems there are still some people on this NG that are so far up their own arseholes they prefer to give out smart put-downs rather than advice. Johan, you knew EXACTLY what I meant in my post above; either that or you are surely as thick as pigshit as you are appearing now.

How's he supposed to know EXACTLY what you meant when you now appear to be saying that you mean EXACTLY the opposite of what you wrote.

You would do well not to take people's posts to literally, then you would look like an ignorant gobshite in font of everyone.

So then people should just randomly guess what people mean when they ask questions instead if believing that if someone says something its what they meant to say?

Thanks to the other people here who have given me tips. It seems a shame that your group has been infiltrated by elitist imbecile's like Johan.

So far all the tips I saw were the same as his. Maximum means least compression as in Maximum Quality.

Anyway Johan, thanks ever so much for your quality input to this thread. Perhaps you would have been more help to me if you had put a pullet through your ignorant skull.

Wait till you ask for help next time :)

You seem to have every right to get pissed off. But your formulation of the original post might not have been too fortunate. If you talk about sliders, you have to label them as they appear in the app or you're up for some flaming.

Also, you seem to be new here. Don't be too quick judging people without first considering your own shortcomings.

As for your question, you can get instantaneous results using compression setting of 100 in Corel PHOTO-PAINT v11. I used it for the same purpose. It makes a nice illustration of the term "maximum compression". ;)

"steve" wrote in message

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the

same

JPEG

picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a

landscape.

One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably

small

compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over

compressed

version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make

is

bad

enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and

then

save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to

myself,

all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again

and

turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I

will

have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image

and

try

to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so

I

can't degrade the image any further.

Learn how to read. That slider is set at maximum QUALITY, not maximum COMPRESSION...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Sadly, it seems there are still some people on this NG that are so far up their own arseholes they prefer to give out smart put-downs rather than advice. Johan, you knew EXACTLY what I meant in my post above; either that or you are surely as thick as pigshit as you are appearing now.
You would do well not to take people's posts to literally, then you would look like an ignorant gobshite in font of everyone.

Thanks to the other people here who have given me tips. It seems a shame that your group has been infiltrated by elitist imbecile's like Johan.
Anyway Johan, thanks ever so much for your quality input to this thread. Perhaps you would have been more help to me if you had put a pullet

through

your ignorant skull.

in article c56np3$2m5ait$, steve at
wrote on 04/09/2004 10:49 AM:

Perhaps you would have been more help to me if you had put a pullet through your ignorant skull.

hahahahaha.

--

steve wrote:

Sadly, it seems there are still some people on this NG that are so far up their own arseholes they prefer to give out smart put-downs rather than advice. Johan, you knew EXACTLY what I meant in my post above; either that or you are surely as thick as pigshit as you are appearing now.

How am I supposed to know that if you mention you've set a slider to MAXIMUM, you actually mean MINIMUM? The word MAXIMUM is only used in the JPEG settings dialog as maximum quality. Besides, if you repeatedly save and reopend a JPEG in MINIMUM quality, you sure as hell end up with a very bad image, so that can't be what you were doing. But then again, you have no idea what you are doing, don't you?

You would do well not to take people's posts to literally, then you would look like an ignorant gobshite in font of everyone.

You are so right. I shouldn't have taken your post too literally, as becomes very clear from the rest of your respons.

--
Johan

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

[sic.]

Besides, if you repeatedly save and reopend a JPEG in MINIMUM quality, you sure as hell end up with a very bad image, so that can't be what you were doing.

[sic.]

Theoretically, that may well be. But in practice that doesn't happen.

If you repeatedly "save as" a JPG file with quality set to MINIMUM, you don't end up with a crappy file. After the first save as, the appearance of the output remains almost exactly the same regardless of the number of subsequent "resaves". The only thing that changes is apparently the file size, and that happens in very small steps, too. So, Steve obviously knows what he's talking about.

You'll probably require quite a bit of time to get any visible results by just resaving. Frankly, I don't think that's even possible!

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:18:19 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" scribbled:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

[sic.]

Besides, if you repeatedly save and reopend a JPEG in MINIMUM quality, you sure as hell end up with a very bad image, so that can't be what you were doing.

[sic.]

Theoretically, that may well be. But in practice that doesn't happen.
If you repeatedly "save as" a JPG file with quality set to MINIMUM, you don't end up with a crappy file. After the first save as, the appearance of the output remains almost exactly the same regardless of the number of subsequent "resaves". The only thing that changes is apparently the file size, and that happens in very small steps, too. So, Steve obviously knows what he's talking about.

You'll probably require quite a bit of time to get any visible results by just resaving. Frankly, I don't think that's even possible!

Just tried it.
Opened a picture
save as jpeg
quality 0
close
repeat 12x
Didn't see any real difference between the first save and the 12th.

Unfortunately, many believe that jpeg compression is useless in a print production environmment - I've found that not to be the case. There are far more damaging things to consider down the chain such as registration problems, stocks, ink fountain key adjustments...

The reason many folks shun JPEG altogether is because they've had bad experiences trying to make web-site logos look good in print, which will never happen. So they blame the format, when the lack of pixels in the file is the real problem. It could have been an uncompressed tiff... a logo 200 pixels across will look crappy no matter the format.

The other problem is that there can be a tendency to "over compress" jpegs. Since most people don't understand what they're doing, they often move the compression slider to 50% as a "compromise" between good and bad. 50% compression is almost always way too much. In fact, 50% as it is now should really be the "worst" quality allowable.

JD

http://www.unleash.com/jeffh/index.asp

Branko Vukelic wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

steve wrote:

[sic.]

Besides, if you repeatedly save and reopend a JPEG in MINIMUM quality, you sure as hell end up with a very bad image, so that can't be what you were doing.

[sic.]

Theoretically, that may well be. But in practice that doesn't happen.
If you repeatedly "save as" a JPG file with quality set to MINIMUM, you don't end up with a crappy file. After the first save as, the appearance of the output remains almost exactly the same regardless of the number of subsequent "resaves". The only thing that changes is apparently the file size, and that happens in very small steps, too. So, Steve obviously knows what he's talking about.

You'll probably require quite a bit of time to get any visible results by just resaving. Frankly, I don't think that's even possible!

In that case, try the following: Each time you open the image again, go to Canvas Size and delete one row of pixels on the LEFT side of the image. Because JPEG's are compressed in 8x8 pixel blocks, this will force a complete new resampling with each save. That should do the trick.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

It's just that you accused Steve of not knowing what he was talking about, yet, you were proven wrong by practical observations. Bad Johan, bad! :)

As for stripping a single line of pixels from the file, that won't cut it. See, the objective was to display (show) two images that had been compressed using different amounts of compression. I suppose they'd have to be exactly the same images in order to make a point, yes? The only problem here was that Photoshop's algorithm had not produced bad enough images. Using apps with different compression setting will do the job. PHOTO-PAINT, for instance. If you ever tried to compress a JPG at compression level 100, you'd know what's meant by the terms like "high compression" or "lossy format". Would make JPGs compressed at 50% look like high quality TIFFs. ;)

P.S.

This also proves Stephan's point that he made recently in another thread: no matter how many times you save a JPG at quality level 12, the image remains virtually the same unless you do something to it. I went as far as 40 consecutive resaves (to a new file every time) with exactly (or almost exactly... couldn't tell the difference) results each time.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

[sic.]

In that case, try the following: Each time you open the image again, go to Canvas Size and delete one row of pixels on the LEFT side of the image. Because JPEG's are compressed in 8x8 pixel blocks, this will force a complete new resampling with each save. That should do the trick.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:30:10 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" scribbled:

It's just that you accused Steve of not knowing what he was talking about, yet, you were proven wrong by practical observations. Bad Johan, bad! :)
As for stripping a single line of pixels from the file, that won't cut it. See, the objective was to display (show) two images that had been compressed using different amounts of compression. I suppose they'd have to be exactly the same images in order to make a point, yes? The only problem here was that Photoshop's algorithm had not produced bad enough images. Using apps with different compression setting will do the job. PHOTO-PAINT, for instance. If you ever tried to compress a JPG at compression level 100, you'd know what's meant by the terms like "high compression" or "lossy format". Would make JPGs compressed at 50% look like high quality TIFFs. ;)

P.S.

This also proves Stephan's point that he made recently in another thread: no matter how many times you save a JPG at quality level 12, the image remains virtually the same unless you do something to it. I went as far as 40 consecutive resaves (to a new file every time) with exactly (or almost exactly... couldn't tell the difference) results each time.

One way he could at least 'simulate' bad compression is to take the target image, decrease its size by 2/3rds, save, then open and restore the image size to its original dimension :)

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

[sic.]

In that case, try the following: Each time you open the image again, go to Canvas Size and delete one row of pixels on the LEFT side of the image. Because JPEG's are compressed in 8x8 pixel blocks, this will force a complete new resampling with each save. That should do the trick.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

To clarify, certain pro programs outside of Photoshop (such as Corel Photo-PAINT, my personal preference over PS) will have a different dialog box with different options available and a possibly wider/narrower range of adjustment. It's up to the user to completely understand the settings available in any export dialog.

It seems that it's become easier to frantically post to a newsgroup than to read the help file or take 3 minutes to experiment. :-)

JD

The only problem here was that Photoshop's

algorithm had not produced bad enough images. Using apps with different compression setting will do the job. PHOTO-PAINT, for instance. If you

ever

tried to compress a JPG at compression level 100, you'd know what's meant

by the

terms like "high compression" or "lossy format". Would make JPGs

compressed at

50% look like high quality TIFFs. ;)

Branko Vukelic wrote:

It's just that you accused Steve of not knowing what he was talking about, yet, you were proven wrong by practical observations. Bad Johan, bad! :)

It all depends on your definition, and I disagree. I just saved an image at quality 12 and a copy at quality 0. No subsequent opening and saving, just one save for both images. The difference is pretty clear, if you ask me. Clear enough to make your point. And the images are about the size that OP mentioned (1000 pixels wide).

Have a look at http://www.johanfoto.nl/Compression.html

As for stripping a single line of pixels from the file, that won't cut it. See, the objective was to display (show) two images that had been compressed using different amounts of compression. I suppose they'd have to be exactly the same images in order to make a point, yes?

So what? You can't delete the same row(s) of pixels from the good one?

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

[sic.]

It all depends on your definition, and I disagree. I just saved an image at quality 12 and a copy at quality 0. No subsequent opening and saving, just one save for both images. The difference is pretty clear, if you ask me. Clear enough to make your point. And the images are about the size that OP mentioned (1000 pixels wide).

Yeah, I know. But OP also stated that quality 0 isn't good enough. Besides, compression 100 in PHOTO-PAINT is a much more effective illustration of the point, don't you think? Other than that, I'd agree with you. There's nothing particularly wrong with using max and min settings in Photoshop.

[sic.]

So what? You can't delete the same row(s) of pixels from the good one?

Okay, I give up. :)

It's a dirty trick. Too dirty for my tastes... But since I am a perfectionist, I guess I am not the one to say it's not a good one. I apologize.

Anyway, PHOTO-PAINT is my preference, too. I don't know what the fuss is about Photoshop, but this whole quandary could have been solved quite quickly whith PHOTO-PAINT. Photoshop just seems to cause a whole lot of trouble for both newbies and people who respond to their posts...

Steve,

You can also try using Visere, WHICH will allow you to set such a low compression rate that you can actually get only the DC value of the 8x8 pixels. Visere is free and can be downloaded from:

http://www.dmmd.net

Best,
Darian

"steve" wrote in message

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same

JPEG

picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably

small

compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is

bad

enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and

then

save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and

try

to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve.

Branko Vukelic wrote:

It all depends on your definition, and I disagree. I just saved an image at quality 12 and a copy at quality 0. No subsequent opening and saving, just one save for both images. The difference is pretty clear, if you ask me. Clear enough to make your point. And the images are about the size that OP mentioned (1000 pixels wide).

Yeah, I know. But OP also stated that quality 0 isn't good enough.

He mentioned that sliders at "MAXIMUM" isn't good enough. He said: "Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max" That's why I thought he might be using maximum quality rather than quality zero. You cannot "turn up" the slider to the max to get more compression. You need to turn down the slider to minimum to do that in Photoshop.

Besides, compression 100 in PHOTO-PAINT is a much more effective illustration of the point, don't you think?

I don't know. I'm not using Photo-Paint. I don't know if the OP is using Photo-Paint, but I doubt he would be willing to buy that program just for this purpose. ;-)

Other than that, I'd agree with you. There's nothing
particularly wrong with using max and min settings in Photoshop.

Exactly. The results speak for themselves. That's why I was (and still am) convinced that the OP was simply doing something wrong. And his reaction to that suggestion certainly doesn't convince me otherwise!

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Branko Vukelic wrote:

It all depends on your definition, and I disagree. I just saved an image at quality 12 and a copy at quality 0. No subsequent opening and saving, just one save for both images. The difference is pretty clear, if you ask me. Clear enough to make your point. And the images are about the size that OP mentioned (1000 pixels wide).

Yeah, I know. But OP also stated that quality 0 isn't good enough.

He mentioned that sliders at "MAXIMUM" isn't good enough. He said: "Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max" That's why I thought he might be using maximum quality rather than quality zero. You cannot "turn up" the slider to the max to get more compression. You need to turn down the slider to minimum to do that in Photoshop.

Sorry, but I did understood him correctly the first time. Interpretting his words as "maximum compression" is clearly in accord with the rest of his text. Even if he wrote "quality slider", I believe I'd have assumed that it was merely a typo. I think it is quite rude to assume posters' idiocy right from the start. You could have asked to make sure that the poster knew what he was talking about, but telling him that he doesn't is just not something that I can agree with. Although I can see how many could have misinterpretted the post (and, indeed, DID so), I don't see any reason for the flaming that took place later on...

Besides, compression 100 in PHOTO-PAINT is a much more effective illustration of the point, don't you think?

I don't know. I'm not using Photo-Paint. I don't know if the OP is using Photo-Paint, but I doubt he would be willing to buy that program just for this purpose. ;-)

Sure, sure. That's just one app that can do such things. Others, I suppose, can do the same and there are probably freewares, too.

Other than that, I'd agree with you. There's nothing
particularly wrong with using max and min settings in Photoshop.

Exactly. The results speak for themselves. That's why I was (and still am) convinced that the OP was simply doing something wrong. And his reaction to that suggestion certainly doesn't convince me otherwise!

It depends. If OP was trying to illustrate what happens when compressing the image "too much", than quality 0 in PS won't cut it. Maybe it would for you. But for the OP, or people like myself, that's just not it.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:41:50 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" scribbled:

Sorry, but I did understood him correctly the first time. Interpretting his words as "maximum compression" is clearly in accord with the rest of his text.

You guessed, since that's not what he wrote.

He said:
"I set the compression slider to maximum"

The maximum setting on the compression slider is the highest quality.

Then he said:
"turn up the compression slider to the max."

On every slider I've seen in any program in all my years of computer work UP is to the right. And on the slider he's referencing UP (to the right) is maximum quality.

Even if he wrote "quality slider", I believe I'd have assumed that it was merely a typo. I think it is quite rude to assume posters' idiocy right from the start.

He reinforced his statement twice that he was setting a slider to maximum, the WORD maximum appears on that slider therefore he's said he's set THAT slider to the MAXIMUM setting.

You could have asked to make sure that the poster knew what he was talking about, but telling him that he doesn't is just not something that I can agree

So pointing out that what he's SAID he's done isn't going to get the results he wants is wrong?

with. Although I can see how many could have misinterpretted the post (and,

The entire fault lies with him. He couldn't be bothered to even LOOK at what he was doing so he could accuractly describe what he was attempting.

indeed, DID so), I don't see any reason for the flaming that took place later on...

You man other than his little "You should have read my mind and known what I meant even though I said the exact opposite several times" combined with his little tantrum and name calling festival?

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:41:50 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" scribbled:

[sic.]

indeed, DID so), I don't see any reason for the flaming that took place later on...

You man other than his little "You should have read my mind and known what I meant even though I said the exact opposite several times" combined with his little tantrum and name calling festival?

Sure, Voivod. You are right. The OP is clearly new to the art of diplomacy.

Other than that, I don't agree much with you. Well, no point in arguing about this, is there? The OP has clearly given up on all of us, so I suggest we all shut up and go back to more creative aspects of our work... (Not that I care too much about the OP giving up on anyone.) :)

"steve" ...

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.
One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I think a better example might be to create a solid background with 1 color text on top of it and save it as JPG. JPG does a lousy job at solid colors.

steve wrote:

As part of a project I'm doing, I need to show two examples of the same JPEG picture. In this particular case it is a 1024x768 image of a landscape.

One of the pictures has to be shown as good quality, with a reasonably small compression ratio. The other image has to be an extremely over compressed version of the same picture. The trouble is, I can't get PS to make is bad enough!

I select save-as jpeg then I set the compression slider to maximum and then save the image. Sadly is doesn't look bad enough, so I though to myself, all I have to do is reload the saved imaged and select save-as again and turn up the compression slider to the max. Do this a few times and I will have a suitable awful image! The thing is, when I reload my image and try to save it, the jpeg compression slider is already set to maximum, so I can't degrade the image any further.

Does anyone know how I can further compress the image?

Steve,

Go to www.irfanview.com and download the free utility there. It will compress much more agressively than Photoshop - guaranteed to be bad enough for you without any need to save repeatedly.

BTW - if you save an image repeatedly, say at 50% quality, it will degrade after 5 or 10 passes, and turn to mud after 20 or 30. The degradation is not the same as a single save at a lower quality setting.

Take care.
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net