Jump to content
The Beckham Digital Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Barry

Myths and Legends

Recommended Posts

Assuming I am not boring everyone to death with these tests, here is another which I hope you will find interesting. I will reveal all later

Simple A and B selection. Can you see any difference between the two images and if so what?

LINK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image A is a 1920*1080 pixel image saved at level 6

Image B is a 1920*1080 pixel image saved at level 6 - 30 times, closed and re-opened every time.

But we would never do that would we? Most would create the Jpg for their slide show and that will be that.

Another point I can't resist making is that many who make the most noise about saving as a jpg should really be putting their effort into other areas of their photography first. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of logic in worrying about Jpg compression when you never got the image sharp where it needed to be to start with.

So, here we have a test that even when we were looking for the difference we could not see any, between a one save jpg and a thirty save.

I even went down to Level 4 and 2 and while you can then see a tiny difference then, it is small and would be missed by most viewers. This assumes that the image began life in reasonably good order to start with. A bit of camera shake or subject movement and all bets are off. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ha, yes I have heard that one too about saving and opening jpeg’s. Nice to see an actual test.

 

I think that any learned skill can be split into two distinct groups of people, theoretical and practical (applied).

 

I meet lots of theoretical photographers, woodworkers and historians, all hopelessly devoted to the facts and figures when they should be focused on just being practical.

 

They often produce very little with the little they do being very uninspiring and always have a list of excuses for any comment, adverse or otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

Congratulations Morturn, you have made it extremely difficult for anyone to respond without appearing to be the person you describe. :)

Knowing that Barry was "up to something" I deliberately held back until I knew just what he was getting at.

Excellent test and also an excellent result, but is it not missing a vital step??

I don't think that anyone would seriously re-open and save a JPEG 30 times, but what he or she "might" do is open, EDIT and Save a JPEG several times??

Leaving aside the tremendous steps forward in design of digital sensors since we had Coolpix 995 Digital Cameras, there has always been a danger of introducing and MAGNIFYING artifacts in JPEGs when continuously Re-opening, EDITING and re-saving. That danger has decreased with the advent of better/bigger sensors but I don't think that we are out of the woods yet. :) What we can probably say is that there would be (considerably) less danger of introducing artifacts with JPEG images from a D810 or a 5DMk IV than with a Coolpix 995 when re-opening, EDITING and re-saving multiple times.

So, I look forward to the next test which includes the EDITING step. I am struggling to make a suggestion about what that editing step should be and would someone repeat the SAME editing step multiple times or would he or she apply a different editing step on each successive re-open, EDIT and re-save?? Should a re-size be incuded in the mix??

Perhaps there is a standard test out there somewhere, but it is not something I have ever come across.

Anyway Barry, you have stimulated a bit of interest with this excercise and I congratulate you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:P I did think of that editing thing at the time and wondered if anyone would say something. I discarded that idea with the thought that anyone daft enough to do that are a lost cause anyway. All the evidence points the other way, hence the 700 MB PTE slide shows we experience.

I recall making a comment on the PTE forum some while back about Ctrl+W to make a small edit of an image in PS and I got lectured on how I mustn't do that because of the loss of quality. :rolleyes:  I can't recall now who said it, but it was clear at the time they didn't know what they were talking about. Because the edit was to add a thin line.

No more testing for a while. I'm bored with that now :)

However, I did do a little test for myself earlier to determine just how many pixels (above 1920*1080) does it take to produce a reasonably nice pan or zoom. I was more or less confident of the answer before I started, but before I quote it in a demo I like to be sure. The answer is very few, about 280 pixels on the width gets you a very nice pan. Then 280 width and about 200 in height does the same for a gentle zoom and no pressure on the PC playing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Barry said:

:P I did think of that editing thing at the time and wondered if anyone would say something. I discarded that idea with the thought that anyone daft enough to do that are a lost cause anyway.

So, should we advise that it is OK to use Ctrl+W "as long as you are only going to add a thin line"?

Only kidding and, as you know, if you give someone a feature like Ctrl+W they are going to us it for ten different reasons than the one it was intended for.

I have noticed a marked difference in what I can and can't do to JPEGs over the years but I still firmly believe that the "rules" formulated during my Coolpix and D70 days are still worth following because I haven't tested all possible scenarios. It's hard to shake old habits.

Someone mentioned here recently that he still uses "Save for the Web" - it's a useful tool which I also still use because I frequently go back over my RAW files looking for new approaches to processing and seeing what new plug-ins will do for them. The ability to actually see if there are any artifacts when saving is sometimes an eye-opener. The more recent RAW files allow you to get away with far more than you can with older RAW files.

You will have to explain the PAN thing in a little more detail? How much of a Pan/Zoom?

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, daveg said:

You will have to explain the PAN thing in a little more detail? How much of a Pan/Zoom?

That's easy, 280 pixels worth of pan😀 Just enough to get a nice pan, but not enough pixels for what we often see. A picture moving too fast and too far in relation with the speed and tempo of their show.

I judges an AV competition recently and a few things stood out. One was the animation, which in some cases was far too fast.

The second thing that stands out generally is the animation speed not used, so objects start with a clunk and stop with a clunk

The other issue was sound. Sound effects and commentary that fade in and out too quickly.

However, I think the tendency with animation more often than not is to overdo it and given the file sizes we have been talking about authors go for massive overkill with file size. Either because they don't realise there is another option or they don't want to have to resize an image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the (lack of) resizing for PTE. I think that the ability to crop within  PTE (more easily) is going to be another reason for laziness in this area.

Have you noticed that the maximum size of upload to Slideshowclub was increased recently and already someone has tried to upload twice the new figure?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t really understand the mechanics beheld PTE in the way it handles files. Adobe Premier Pro only references the files, so any changes you make are stores as data in the project file. Therefore, the original file remains unchanged.

 

Premier Pro will then export at a size, resolution and format you choose. You then have complete control over the size of the exported file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaveG

Yes, and remember what I said some months ago when someone wanted to make a slide show with a ridiculous number of images. (many hundreds) Not one of those on the forum who know better would say anything. Including me and you :(

Someone should have said, are you sure you're heading down the right path here, but everyone is so paranoid about causing offence that they all stay quiet. Well we need to speak up 

Morturn

I don't know how practical this is, but you can tick a box in PTE so that if you use 2 minutes of a 10 minute sound file, your slide show does not get weighed down with the other 8 minutes not used.

The same thing is needed with images, but I doubt its an easy thing to do, or practical. To my mind a little effort to produce something decent is the least you can do, but not everyone is on that page. It seems there are still many who want to do the minimum work, then sit back and get the praise :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Ctrl + W regularly and have never found it to cause any problems. I often find it better to leave some final editing until I have looked at the finished slide show; not usually anything major perhaps a slight colour change or repositioning of a horizon for example. (I usually save my images as 2560 x 1440 px so that I have some leeway for further editing if required and this also allows some scope for zooming and panning). What, if any, is the difference between using Ctrl + W and loading the saved jpeg image into Photoshop via Bridge?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

There is no difference, it was just someone with not much experience, a while back latching onto that option as a way of talking BS to be honest

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry

I would be interested in this post, unfortunately I'm not able to open the link on the Mac or PC. I have changed the settings on the Mac as I suggested to you previously but still no joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was interested to see the tests Doreen, but when clicking the link on the macbook it opens a new window in the browser and looks like it is trying to download from mediafire but then does not. In the end I managed to download by right clicking the link and choosing download linked file, which then downloaded OK. Not sure if this is due to changes on MacOS or caused by mediafire. Even when I managed to download to the macbook I could not open the files because the tests are only an .exe file from PTE. Therefore I would not attempt to view the tests on the Mac unless you have Windows OS installed using VMware, Parallels or Bootcamp.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinion/Doreen

The files I put up were no different to normal, but they were PC Exe files. I am not sure if a Video would work that well with this type of test as it may impact the very quality I was trying to show.

I am away from my PC right now, but tomorrow I can create a Mac version and post a link to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Denis and Barry

 

I have to be very careful opening zip files on the Mac,, a few times I’ve had the screen of death, fortunately when shutting everything down for a couple of hours it has cleared the confusion. I would have to travel quite a distance to get the Mac sorted.

I don’t really want to install Windows OS on the Mac it would be pointless, I use a PC too. It’s the first time I’ve not been able to open a mediafire link on the PC.

I haven’t managed to download by right clicking on the mac or pc, maybe I can when Barry posts a Mac version. Thanks for your help:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/10/2016 at 8:19 AM, Barry said:

Morturn

I don't know how practical this is, but you can tick a box in PTE so that if you use 2 minutes of a 10 minute sound file, your slide show does not get weighed down with the other 8 minutes not used.

The same thing is needed with images, but I doubt its an easy thing to do, or practical. To my mind a little effort to produce something decent is the least you can do, but not everyone is on that page. It seems there are still many who want to do the minimum work, then sit back and get the praise :)

 

Barry,

What it does is create a new MP3 file based on all of your audio tracks and is a definite saver in terms of File Size. It effectively discards the unused portions of the WAV/MP3 while making a new MP3 at the new selected Bit Rate. The Tick Box BTW is in Project Options/Audio.

But if and when I use that feature I feed the Project with WAV files or 320K MP3s so that the final (exported) MP3 has the best chance of being of the highest quality.

It is the same argument as before (with JPEGs) and although I don't dispute the Tests that you did it is a hard to break a habit from way back when.

Regarding the JPEGs Igor made a statement about it recently in which he reminded us that PTE is "non-destructive" in terms of how it edits JPEGs.

All of this applies to EXE files only - if you Export Video you only use the portion of Audio that is required to do the job - the video frames are derived from the JPEGs and as you said, the quality is not dependable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a problem too so emailed MediaFire.  Here is their reply:

Karen (MediaFire)

Sep 29, 2:18 PM CDT 

Hello,

Please access the file at http://www.mediafire.com/?huautb0acaqa8nn. It is hosted on a different server which is why it may initially give you redirect error message while it relocates the file.

We appreciate you choosing MediaFire.

Karen
MediaFire | Customer Support

If you look at the original file it was at: http://download1335.mediafire.com/lqu6jps0u5cg/huautb0acaqa8nn/comparison+8.zip

So the difference seems to be that the two bold bits have been eliminated.  This worked on another file I downloaded but I have no idea why.  Give it a try

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daveg said:

But if and when I use that feature I feed the Project with WAV files or 320K MP3s so that the final (exported) MP3 has the best chance of being of the highest quality.

Always used Mp3's and in practical use I have never had a music quality problem that I could identify and nor do millions who listen on iPods daily. It just adds to the issues I raise. Why put a 30MB wav music file in the show when you will never hear the difference in a 5MB mp3. Especially on the sound systems some are using. 

Once again, many who do this need to put their time and effort into far more important things than this.

PTE will allow you to crop images, but it doesn't reduce overall file size at all, so its one part of PTE I have never seen the point in 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry,Rambler

Still no joy with the links on either computer, at least the tests and information from you all have been very interesting and good to know.

Thank you:rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doreen

I don't really understand what the issue is. I can download any of them no trouble and so have many others, so where is the issue your end?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...