Nasheet Siddiqui Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Which is best way to compress your images... programs methods any other funda..... google tells me fireworks is the best...I will try...someone told me webshots are using some kinda technology which even compresses your jpegs same quality..I have to check this too..??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 most 3d applications are pretty crap at jpg compression, so save directly out to tiff, tga, bmp etc etc but the best method of getting superb jpg image quallity compression is good old photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piotrgreg Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 agree, photoshop gives u enough control for compressing files, besides other advantages of course... good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Mottle Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I have used both FW and PS extensively to compress images (more specififcally GIF and JPG) and there is little to no difference between the two in quality or file size. I prefer FW for GIF compression as its interface to edit the color palete is better, but for JPEG there is little to difference with JPG. As an aside, while I save my rendering work to TGA or TIF, when I send my work to the printers they require the files to be sent as a JPG with a compression of 12 (lowest) and there is no difference between that and a uncompressed TIF on any of the digital outputs I have sent through. They print on a $500K KODAK Professional RP 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipdesigner Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 agree, photoshop gives u enough control for compressing files, besides other advantages of course... good luck *i agree, even image sizes and quality control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I prefer ACDSee over Photoshop for converting tga to jpg. I like the quality better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I have used both FW and PS extensively to compress images (more specififcally GIF and JPG) and there is little to no difference between the two in quality or file size. I prefer FW for GIF compression as its interface to edit the color palete is better, but for JPEG there is little to difference with JPG. As an aside, while I save my rendering work to TGA or TIF, when I send my work to the printers they require the files to be sent as a JPG with a compression of 12 (lowest) and there is no difference between that and a uncompressed TIF on any of the digital outputs I have sent through. They print on a $500K KODAK Professional RP 30. if you are not careful, you are ging to open the tif vs jpeg quality conversation again. when i was on dial-up about 3 or 4 years go i spent time comparing Fireworks and ImageReady. i found that under the same compression settings Fireworks gave slightly smaller files, and they looked slightly better than the ones compressed with ImageReady. ...and when i say a slightly smaller file size with Fireworks, I am talking maybe a 31k file vs a 33k file. i was on dialup, so that small of a difference mattered in my opinion. but like i said, that was 4 years ago, and both are several versions more mature now. ...also, if you are compressing for web, you shouldn't do that directly in Photoshop. i think there is extra information in files that is stripped out when you use a web image compression software vs a photo editing software. also the web compression software gives you an interactive preview ont he compression. although i am pretty sure that you meant you were using ImageReady and not Photoshop, so you know what i am talking about. also... apparently there is a group in Europe somewhere that are trying to copyright GIF. http://burnallgifs.org/archives/ also... weren't both of these formats supposed to start to fade away in favor of PNG files anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DM Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 although i am pretty sure that you meant you were using ImageReady and not Photoshop There is the Save for Web module within Photoshop itself that is very quick and useful for website, or smallish preview, images. It doesn't like really large size (4000-6000+px) image files much, although I have sometimes let it struggle with them, just to see if it can. The other thing is, I don't think that the Save for Web module includes the colour profile in the jpg file, so if you want that included, I think you have to do a normal Save As...jpg. Not sure if ImageReady (or Fireworks?) will include the colour profile in jpgs either. Never heard of ACDSee, but it sounds like a PC thing, and I'm on a Mac. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 There is the Save for Web module within Photoshop itself that is very quick and useful for website, or smallish preview, images. It doesn't like really large size (4000-6000+px) image files much, although I have sometimes let it struggle with them, just to see if it can. The other thing is, I don't think that the Save for Web module includes the colour profile in the jpg file, so if you want that included, I think you have to do a normal Save As...jpg. Not sure if ImageReady (or Fireworks?) will include the colour profile in jpgs either. Never heard of ACDSee, but it sounds like a PC thing, and I'm on a Mac. D. didn't realize save for web was there. i always thought photoshop used ImageReady when you saved for web. guess i was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard McCarthy Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 I prefer ACDSee over Photoshop for converting tga to jpg. I like the quality better. Fran, are you kidding me?! ACDSee has the worst Jpeg compression setting ever. I tried it many times, each time it give me the worst result ever (jpeg block artifacts, image color distortion) I too have spent time doing extensive test on JPEG/GIF compression and I agree with Crazy hobo (haha) that FW is slightly better if you have the time to fine tune your graphics. It just give it slight 1-2k edge if you are optimising your graphics for low bandwidth web delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Fran, are you kidding me?! ACDSee has the worst Jpeg compression setting ever. I tried it many times, each time it give me the worst result ever (jpeg block artifacts, image color distortion) Maybe you were doing something wrong then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard McCarthy Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 well, perhaps it's because of the version I have when I did the test years ago I got ACDSee v3.1 that comes with my Canon Scanner. Perhaps they have remedy this problem by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasheet Siddiqui Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 Jeff please add jp2 format while uploading..... http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?p=67784#post67784 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasheet Siddiqui Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 jp2 rocks http://www.jpeg2000info.com/why/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohamedberry Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Guys... for couble of years i use ACDSee for JPG comp. and YES it gives u really tiny size with acceptable quality, i use ver. 6.0 and i like its output Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now