[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APML] Scaling Images, javascript toggle



Title: RE: [APML] Scaling Images, javascript toggle
Thor,
 
You should have joined the skinny dip with your red flashlight, think of the fun you could have had illuminating the waterscape.  (G)
 
Really nice pictures of your trip, I was in Oregon, Idaho and Montana for a month this summer myself.  God's country for certain.
 
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Thor Olson
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: RE: [APML] Scaling Images, javascript toggle

Matt,
Jpeg compression is spatially lossy.  It carves the image into 8x8 pixel
blocks and then does a fourier transform on each, keeping the low order
large amplitude coefficients and discarding the small amplitude, high
frequency ones.  The result is that an exact pixel coordinate of a point
source, like a star, will not be preserved within the 8x8 block, depending
on how much gets thrown away.

If one jpeg is larger, it indicates that more of the detail is retained.
I would expect its positions to be more true to the original.  I don't
know what the Genuine Fractal algorithm does beforehand, so it's not
clear which is "truer".

BTW, I agree that your image toggle is a very powerful presentation
tool.  It inspired me to assemble a pair of images, not nearly so dramatic
as your day-night scenes, but intriguing in its own way.  Here is
a link to Many Glacier Lights, ala BenDaniel:

http://nightscapes2.home.att.net/photos/startrails/OdysseyTrails/ManyGlacierLightsOnOff.html

Thor

Thor Olson                           
Color Imaging Scientist            voice:      +1 651 365 5252
EFI-Minnesota                 email: mailto:thor.olson@efi.com
web-res astrophotos at:       http://home.att.net/~nightscapes

   "Man has ten, computers have two, Nature has e fingers."





-----Original Message-----
From: Matt BenDaniel [mailto:matt@starmatt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:49 PM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: Re: [APML] Scaling Images (was: Cocoon Nebula)


Mike,

I used Photoshop JPEG quality=8 for both renditions.

In GF I used their lossless STN encoding, which purports to capture and retain 100.0% of the information in the image.

JPEG *does* affect pixel layout. It is obvious in Photoshop Save As JPEG Dialog and toggle the preview on and off. It is more obvious at lower quality levels. It helps to zoom to 200% to see the subtle changes when higher quality is used.

The web image toggling capability is very useful, huh? You can do the same thing in PS by switching layers on and off, but it's hard to show that to someone else on the internet.

Matt

At 10:40 PM 11/6/2001 -0500, Mike Cook, AF9Y wrote:
>   This is really interesting.  What settings did you use for the
>jpeg and GF compression?  I can see a grid in both images,
>but less so in the GF.  The grid lines appear to be the point
>of shifting.  I thought that jpeg compression was just
>in the color data and produced no image displacement.
>
>
>Date sent:              Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:26:27 -0500
>To:                     astro-photo@seds.org
>From:                   Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>
>Subject:                [APML] Scaling Images (was: Cocoon Nebula)
>Send reply to:          astro-photo@seds.org
>
>> At 06:16 PM 11/6/2001 +0100, Mikkel Steine wrote:
>> >...I know from my days in desktop
>> >publishing that Photoshop is not always the preferred tool for scaling images.
>> >There are numerous techniques for resampling an image, and it would be fun to
>> >try out some of them...
>>
>> Mikkel,
>>
>> I downloaded the free evaluation version of Genuine Fractals. Using GF I scaled the image
>> down to the exact same size (703x640) as my PS JPG and uploaded it to my web site:
>>
>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/mbendaniel1/gallery/astro/cocoon.html
>>
>> You can toggle to the PS scaled by moving mouse over image.
>>
>> The pixels patterns resulting from GF are slightly different than Photoshop bicubic. The
>> GF stars are sharper and less smeared. The JPG size of the GF image is larger, which may
>> be an indication that GF preserves more information from the original image.
>>
>> It is very curious how the image annoyingly shifts around when you toggle between the two.
>> Could PS or GF be screwing up its scaling? -- Matt BenDaniel http://starmatt.com
>>
>>
>> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>>
>
>
>
>Mike Cook, AF9Y
>http://www.webcom.com/af9y
>mwcook@cris.com
>
>
>
>
>--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>

--
Matt BenDaniel
http://starmatt.com


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>