|
jffe
|
O.k., so I've got FF running inside an old version of Photoshop (V5), and when I render to .jpeg at the highest quality setting, it's 1/3 the file size of a 100% render straight out of FF (stand alone). So my question is, why the difference, and what is the difference in halfway down to earth (non-techy) terms ?
jffe Filter Forger |
| Posted: August 27, 2007 6:46 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Kraellin
Kraellin
|
on your full size render in stand-alone, how are you checking the file size, in ps v5? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
| Posted: August 28, 2007 12:50 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
jffe
|
When I hover the mouse over the file it tells the Kb/Mb size of the file, and it's a big difference, about triple.
jffe Filter Forger |
| Posted: August 28, 2007 1:18 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Kraellin
Kraellin
|
when you hover the mouse over it in what? photoshop? desktop? what? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
| Posted: August 28, 2007 1:28 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
jffe
|
| Quote |
|---|
Kraellin wrote:
when you hover the mouse over it in what? |
----Just in the folder I rendered it into. Or when I right-click and check the properties.
jffe Filter Forger
|
| Posted: August 28, 2007 1:49 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Kraellin
Kraellin
|
ah, ok. sounded like you might were pulling it up in ps and getting the loss that way. seems no, though.
no clues then. sounds fishy. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
| Posted: August 28, 2007 1:50 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
GMM
Moderator
Filter Forge, Inc
Posts: 3495
|
Jffe, different programs have different compression algorithms. The 'Highest' setting in Photoshop may greatly differ from the '100%' in Filter Forge.
|
| Posted: August 28, 2007 6:25 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
|
Jffe, could you post both Jpegs and an uncompressed Tiff/BMP of the original render?
|
| Posted: August 28, 2007 6:27 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
jffe
|
| Quote |
|---|
Vladimir Golovin wrote:
Jffe, could you post both Jpegs and an uncompressed Tiff/BMP of the original render? |
----The .tif alone is 16mb, yer looking at anywhere from 25megs to 25megs for all 4 renders, can I just upload them to the forum here ??
jffe Filter Forger
|
| Posted: August 28, 2007 10:54 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
I would also say that the "Full-precision color encoding" checkbox in FF's JPEG save dialog (which is enabled by default) increases file size a lot (around two times usually) for giving relatively small quality improvement when dealing with photographic or just any other non-high-contrast images (high-contrast synthetic images like patterns benefit a lot from that option on the other hand).
|
| Posted: August 29, 2007 3:25 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
jffe
|
| Quote |
|---|
onyXMaster wrote:
I would also say that the "Full-precision color encoding" checkbox in FF's JPEG save dialog |
----And that is bypassed when FF is used as a filter/plug-in inside of Photoshop then I take it ?
jffe Filter Forger
|
| Posted: August 29, 2007 7:40 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
jffe
|
| Quote |
|---|
onyXMaster wrote:
I would also say that the "Full-precision color encoding" checkbox in FF's JPEG save dialog (which is enabled by default) increases file size a lot (around two times usually) |
----I tried it with a 600 X 600 image, and a 1200 X 1200 (100% synthetic images), and got right about 25%-30% filesize difference both times. The difference between FF stand-alone and FF inside Photoshop is about 300%+, waayyy bigger difference. I need to know why, and what the difference is.
jffe Filter Forger
|
| Posted: August 29, 2007 11:48 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
