Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Help Optimize Quality For Medium Sized Image  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (12 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Hello,

Please have a look here:
http://www.airliners.net/testPhotoQuality.php

Type in the photo ID (with leading zeros if needed!) and check what different filters and jpeg quality settings does to your medium sized image. Find the optimum between size and quality and post here what settings you used. You can also link to the finished photos by checking their URL to prove your point.

I have to run now but if there's any problems, post here and I'll read it tomorrow.

Thanks!
Johan


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Huh? Man I am am dumb, what is this???

LGW


User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2187 times:


LGW,

Take a look at this thread for an explanation where Johan is coming from on this...

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/47867/

Stephan


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

He is aware of that, (he posted in that thread)

What do you mean Ben?



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

I tried the following:
-filter Triangle
-unsharp 1x

Result
- Size 22138 bytes (Original size 28335 bytes)
- Difference: 6197 bytes smaller than the original
pic can be seen at:
http://www.airliners.net/testPhotoQuality.php?5292

Anybody has other ideas?

Rgds
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineAirplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

186861:

JPG qual: 10
Unsharp: 1.5 ; 70
Noise rad: 1
Blur sigma: 45
Resize: lanczos

10,054 bytes smaller



Why yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist...
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I mean waht is it for and what does it do? and what info do u enter???

LGW


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

It helps improve image quality of the medium format pictures. Because of the resizing, some blurr and other unwelcome side effects are appearing. Normally, you counter these in Paintshop or Photoshop. These settings are here to improve the quality of the picture. You will find Unsharp Mask settings, blur settings, and other filters to improve the quality. We are asked to test the settings and (?) see what the best settings are?

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5486 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Digital Photo....
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_9101.jpg

-filter Lanczos -quality 75 -unsharp 2x

First: New file (Size 32910 bytes) - Second: Original (Size 33108 bytes):
The New file is 198 bytes smaller than the original (Good!)

Film.....
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_5660.jpg

-filter Lanczos -quality 75 -sharpen 1x

First: New file (Size 26456 bytes) - Second: Original (Size 26953 bytes):
The New file is 497 bytes smaller than the original (Good!)

Film was a &#(*$&# to get smaller and to look good. When you click the link for the Film one....it looks horrible (didn't look like that when I fixed it, what made it look so distorted?)


User currently offlineYEGPIX From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 159 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2049 times:

I just prefer the old way. One size of the pic to view. If you have too small of a monitor (under 17") too bad. A lot of us have invested alot of time and money to upload pics sized at 1024 x 768 for A.net standards. Like the saying goes... If it aint broke, don't fix it. Just my 2 sense worth.
 Insane


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Johan,

I think that we are kicking a dog that would be better left alone.

A "generated" photo will never be consistantly good - there are just too many variables - sharpness of the original, presence of cheatlines, etc.

So, instead of making the default view the medium view, which is of lower quality, how about adding a selector on the thumbnail view, where the person can select SMALL / MEDIUM / ORIGINAL (LARGE). In addition, I would recommend providing the pixel dimensions of the original picture, that way, a person who wants to see picture uploaded at 1400x1000 can decide whether he wants to wait for that big a file, or choose a smaller size. It also would imply that if you want the highest quality image, use the original size.

Cheers,

Charles


User currently offlineTonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

I agree with Charles, medium size only should be accesed if specifically required.

In addition, I think that the small size is too close to the first thumbnail -if not equal-, so it could be removed unless there's still enough people who selects the "No thumbnails" option.

Anyway it's a good idea to help the slower connection users.

Toni



There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1873 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Two replies to the issue at hand? I thought you guys knew how to use digital image filters, you should know that it's an absolute must if you'd like to achieve the best in image quality.

I guess I'll have to do this myself then, don't complain if you don't like the quality of the medium sized image, you had your change to suggest settings.

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Johan,
>you should know that it's an absolute must if you'd like to achieve the best in image quality.<

That is the point! The best in image quality!
I don't beleive that can be accomplished with a standardized one-fits-all filter.
/JM




AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Johan,

this is probably too late for you but I used
resize Lanczos
Unsharp radius .2
and Unsharp sigma .4


this seemed to be pretty good. Not perfect but maybe a good starting point


J




Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Jan,

Applying a filter can improve the quality of all photos. It won't be perfect but we'll get it as good as it can possibly be while keeping the bandwidth saving (ie file size) benefits. People will open your large version photos if they want excellent quality.

I intend to prove in a short while that quality can be improved across all photos.

/ Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Ok, please try these settings:

JPEG Quality: 85
Unsharp Mask Radius: 0.2
Unsharp Mask Sigma: 150
Blur Sigma: 100
Blur Radius: 0.3
Resize filter: Lanczos

Leave other fields in no or empty.

So, what do you think? Filesize is normally slightly increased but have a look at the thumbnail version as well. You'll notice that the new version looks better and is normally smaller than the old version. So I think the smaller thumbnail counters the bigger medium sized photo.

I'm going away to eat at a friend and will be back in two hours or so and unless someone objects, I'll start the scripts that will make the changes.

Thanks,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1818 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Just one small thing. You might wonder why we add that blur after the sharping. It's to save space, although the blurring isn't visible, jpeg manages to compress the file better resulting in a smaller file.

/ Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

I tried those figures and this one comes out pretty jaggy
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_4812.jpg

This one is so sharp I dare not look at it  Wink/being sarcastic at Unsharp Mask Radius 0.2
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_3156.jpg


here is 0.1 instead. A bit smoother on the eyes and less jaggies
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_9766.jpg

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlinePH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

Well I'm not an expert in this area but I am not happy with this:
http://www.airliners.net/temp/temp_9303.jpg
BTW I tried Johan's Settings

OK; the photo is not as sharp in itself as Jan's photo, because the plane is driving on the runway and is photographed form a greater distance but that is the case with most photos in the database. When you look at the original it is reasonably sharp. Am I doing something wrong here?

Johan, are you already uploading the new scripts? And are you prepared to change it one more time if we come up with something even better? If so, I will play with it a little more in the next few days.

How did your friend taste Johan? Wink/being sarcastic

Martin Boschhuizen



Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Martin,

I've changed some variables in the script so the above is not valid anymore, please try this instead:

convert -despeckle -resize \"640x640>\" -unsharp 0.2x150 -blur 0.2x0.3 -quality 80 $jpgfile /ready/$jpgfile

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlinePH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (12 years 15 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

Ok, that seems to work well. I haven't found a setting that produces better results, so I guess that this is pretty much it.

Still I have the feeling to be thrown back into the stone ages with these file sizes. Files made at 1024*768 simply do not look good when they are rezised to a smaller output. Looking at it from the bright side; my father wil be able to view my pictures better; he runs his monitor at 640*480

Martin



Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 15 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

The medium versions do look much better now.
....but, there is no copyright banner on the bottom?
Are the 640 px wide pictures too small to matter?

Cheers

Gerry


User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 15 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

... funny, some have the copyright banner, some don't?
Bug?

Gerry


User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 24, posted (12 years 14 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

The medium versions should have copyright banners, there was a bug in the upload script that caused them not to. All medium and small sized photos are currently being redone with the new resize and filter settings so the copyright banner will be added. It will take some time though, I started the filter script last night and it's processed less than one hundredths of all photos...

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help With Quality Rejection posted Fri Sep 29 2006 11:38:26 by UnattendedBag
Help With 'quality ' Rejection Please. posted Sun Sep 24 2006 12:30:39 by Nucky
Some Help With Quality posted Fri Jul 28 2006 17:09:10 by WakeTurbulence
Help Request - Quality Rejections posted Sun Jul 2 2006 00:16:52 by Walter2222
Help On Quality Needed posted Thu May 4 2006 18:34:55 by OlegShv
Please Help Me Prepare For A Good Shot posted Thu Apr 27 2006 23:41:53 by AirKas1
Help On Quality posted Sun Apr 16 2006 20:39:27 by Flamedude707
Help On A Quality Rejection! posted Thu Feb 9 2006 00:11:17 by Bubbles
Help With Quality And Crop, Please! posted Sun Jan 15 2006 10:22:23 by Frippe
Please Help With Quality / Size Rejection posted Thu Dec 15 2005 21:37:54 by The