| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2005 10:10:05 PM · #1 |
Anyone familiar with Chroma Subsampling? I'm using Paint Shop Pro 9 and have an image that I've saved using this option and the image looks great when I view it in Paint Shop Pro. Tried to upload this image for my challenge entry - errors out (file corrupted). Won't open in Internet Explorer either...
This kinda bites because the image looks great using this option. Guess if I'm going to print it directly from PSP it's ok. Bummer - I was so excited!
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:56:13 AM · #2 |
Nothing from the evening people - any daytimers have any info on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:01:16 AM · #3 |
Check how you saved the file. Make sure it's a jpeg. Lot of times these programs will save to a proprietary format. Just go to the Save As menu and select .jpeg from File Type.
Only thing I can think of.
Clara
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:28:49 AM · #4 |
Thanks Clara. It worked! And I'm supposed to be a computer guy - sheesh. The file that was corrupt, when saved as (without the Chroma), opens and looks just great.
I try to limit the number of times that a file is resaved as a jpg to limit data loss and assumed if I did a save as on this file I would lose the result the Chroma Subsampling gave me.
For anyone curious - here is a help description of what Chroma Subsampling does. There are various levels that you can apply.
With chroma subsampling the file size of the JPEG is reduced by averaging the color information for every 2 x 2 square of pixels. You can change this setting to have a larger area of color information averaged.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 09:25:35 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Thanks Clara. It worked! And I'm supposed to be a computer guy - sheesh. The file that was corrupt, when saved as (without the Chroma), opens and looks just great.
I try to limit the number of times that a file is resaved as a jpg to limit data loss and assumed if I did a save as on this file I would lose the result the Chroma Subsampling gave me.
For anyone curious - here is a help description of what Chroma Subsampling does. There are various levels that you can apply.
With chroma subsampling the file size of the JPEG is reduced by averaging the color information for every 2 x 2 square of pixels. You can change this setting to have a larger area of color information averaged. |
I've never heard anyone report that the results of chroma subsampling were desirable before... normally the only reason this is done is file size ruduction. The color averaging over the 2x2 px area (or larger if selected) is the reason that JPEGs often look "blocky" as opposed to smooth. Thus, subsampling is normally on the list of "things to be avoided."
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:40:03 AM · #6 |
I do a small amount on almost all of my dpc entries, and have never had an adverse comment reflecting it. It's a trade off, of course, between definition and colour, and of course the fact that very few of my shots have great big areas of the same colour in them.
e |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:44:36 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic: I've never heard anyone report that the results of chroma subsampling were desirable before... normally the only reason this is done is file size ruduction. The color averaging over the 2x2 px area (or larger if selected) is the reason that JPEGs often look "blocky" as opposed to smooth. Thus, subsampling is normally on the list of "things to be avoided." |
I kind of thought the same thing. What happened was I had an image that shows a face and after bringing the image file size down to meet the 150k challenge limit the face was a bit blotchy regardless of what I tried doing to correct it. So I figured what the heck and tried the Chroma Subsampling set to 4x4 2x2 2x2 (not sure why three values - RGB maybe?). The result was pretty darn good! The blotchy look on the face went away and I couldn't see any neglible results anywhere else in the image (and I looked pretty hard). I think what it did is by averaging the color for pixels it kind of 'smoothed' the face a bit? The face is a bit distant, I'm sure the results would have been different if the face was up close.
Things that make you go hmmmm.... ;^)
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 11:54:09 AM · #8 |
I'm not sure, I'm just guessing here, but it sounds like sort of what NeatImage does, or Xero's SuperSmoother... Keep it under control, it can work wonders.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:35:02 PM · #9 |
| It is really not meant to be a filter but just a way to save a bit on the file size. I have tried both ways and have not seen much improvement in the file size. If you are really trying to squeeze the file size down it might be worthwhile but I don't tend to use it. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:36:32 PM · #10 |
Yep, I agree with Robert, what you did in effect was average out the noise in the individual color channels. In this case, it seems to have worked out well.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 12:12:55 PM EST.