Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compression > #1449 > unrolled thread

Need good image compression management program

Back to article view | Back to comp.compression

Contents

  Need good image compression management program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-24 20:50 -0700
    Re: Need good image compression management program pfraser <pete_fraser@comcast.net> - 2012-07-25 05:25 -0700
      Re: Need good image compression management program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-25 13:46 -0700
        Re: Need good image compression management program Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-07-26 08:15 +0200
          Re: Need good image compression management program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-27 14:56 -0700
            Re: Need good image compression management program Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-07-28 19:54 +0200
        Re: Need good image compression management program Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-07-26 08:18 +0200
    Re: Need good image compression management program Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-07-25 16:16 +0200
    Re: Need good image compression management program "George Johnson" <matrix29@charter.net> - 2012-07-25 23:47 -0400
      Re: Need good image compression management program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-27 15:21 -0700
        Re: Need good image compression management program "George Johnson" <matrix29@charter.net> - 2012-07-28 02:34 -0400
    Re: Need good image compression management program Errol Smith <user@example.net> - 2012-07-27 11:33 +1000

#1449 — Need good image compression management program

Hoping to hear from Richter on this.

What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage.

So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest.

Should I start using a more modern image format like JPEG-XR or JPEG2000? If so, can they be made compatible with WinXP? I use MSPaint to view images and the Windows Image viewer for viewing multiple images. I hate using dedicated programs for simple viewing, they take forever to load.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450

Industrial One wrote:
> What's a good program that can do operations including compression
 > on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album
 > exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous.

Indeed. That's about ten cents worth of storage.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148844

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1452

Richter, I'm not familiar with Linux and don't have it installed, I can't create a bash script. Screw it, I'll just ask elsewhere or find one alone.

I guess J2K is out of the equation. But do I understand right that XR would be even lower quality? If J2K was released in 2000, why the hell does Vista/7 support XR but not 2000? Confuzzling.

I never was too impressed with J2K anyway. At the same size as JPG, it looked blurrier. The macroblocking artifacts are far more pleasant on the eyes IMO, but I guess wavelet and DCT have their strengths and weaknesses on certain photos and none of them are taken of the stars so...

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:25:39 PM UTC, pfraser wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
> > What's a good program that can do operations including compression
>  > on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album
>  > exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous.
> 
> Indeed. That's about ten cents worth of storage.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148844

Dude, you are a fuckin moron. Sending 2GB over a connection fast enough to do it quickly is about a $100/month worth of bandwidth. 2 GB is enough to store 3 high-quality movies. 500 still pictures, many of them with a solid color background are NOT fucking worth three 100-minute movies, thats almost 500,000 frames.

FYI, I have a 2TB HDD, its read/write speed is maybe 30 times faster than my first 2GB drive, and this new 2TB drive is one of the best on the market. That is really fucking pathetic.

Either way, I asked for an image management program, not to philosophize with you. Learn your shit and stop wondering why the fuck everything today drags on like an obese hippo ass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1454

Am 25.07.2012 22:46, schrieb Industrial One:
> Richter, I'm not familiar with Linux and don't have it installed, I can't create a bash script.

Then, what about learning it?

http://linuxconfig.org/Bash_scripting_Tutorial

Or use any other scripting tool you like. Laziness is not an excuse. I'm 
pretty sure if you do a google on netpbm, you find also versions for 
windows.

> I guess J2K is out of the equation. But do I understand right that XR would be even lower quality?

Mostly, it's about a 10% performance gap between XR and JPEG 2000.

> If J2K was released in 2000, why the hell does Vista/7 support XR but not 2000? Confuzzling.

Because it's Microsoft. JPEG XR is basically HDPhoto from Microsoft, 
plus a couple of fixes for problems MS did not spot, though the JPEG did 
(amonst them, I did.).

> I never was too impressed with J2K anyway. At the same size as JPG, it looked blurrier.

That depends on the implementation. The trouble is that most (if not 
all) of the stupid open source implementations optimize for PSNR which 
provides impressive performance numbers, but less impressive pictures. 
It's not that one cannot change that, just that nobody is willing to put 
that into an open source tool (including me - I don't bother with other 
people's bad software, it's enough if I do it right.)

>The macroblocking artifacts are far more pleasant on the eyes IMO,

Macroblocks? XR has macroblocks. JPEG only has blocks. JPEG 2000 doesn't 
have any blocks. (Well, to be fair, it has codeblocks, but these do not 
add artifacts. And it has tiles if you're ignorant enough to use them.)

But if you prefer blocks, you're probably in an exceptional position or 
you got used to the block artifacts. It's not that this wasn't tested on 
subjective tests, for example by the EPFL.

> Dude, you are a fuckin moron.

But probably correct. Buying a bigger disk could well solve the problem. 
If not, I wonder what the problem is - because then storing the images 
is not the problem as a solution for this was given.

So long,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1467

I found a batch plugin for GIMP and it worked perfectly. On a quality setting of 90 and resizing by half, I have reduced the 2 GB to 200 MB.

Thanks for all the other suggestions though, I'll keep 'em in mind. ThumbsPlus was pretty good but it lacked the option to use Floating point instead of integer for the encoding.

On another note, JPEG-XR BLOWS. Same quality at the same filesize my ass, it was worse quality at the SAME size. 

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:15:48 AM UTC, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Am 25.07.2012 22:46, schrieb Industrial One:
> 
> > Richter, I'm not familiar with Linux and don't have it installed, I can't create a bash script.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what about learning it?

Maybe when I arrive to Germany. ;)
 
> 
> http://linuxconfig.org/Bash_scripting_Tutorial
> 
> 
> 
> Or use any other scripting tool you like. Laziness is not an excuse. 

What about living in shitty North American streets? No family to run to either.

You live in Germany, right? That was one of the options on my plan to get the fuck out of this fascist Anglo-saxon sphere. Do you think I'd get very far not knowing German or only knowing how to get a simple sentence across?

Would a foreigner like me get funding for college there or at least have a reasonable job on the corner?

I've always been fond of Germany and its culture. Solid, hard-working, educated and self-respecting people, unlike these hideous, incestuous redneck freaks in America, still practicing the outdated, 13th century Virtue Ethics.

Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to punch the bastard out when asked during an interview "tell me about yourself" and other irrelevant questions or later harassed by some dumbshit manager or senior peasant in a repetitive factory job with head games about how I like the boring job that any retard could do easily.

This unsolicited intrusions into other peoples lives is a very common American behavior, and when you practice your right to reject the dumb fuck's advances into your personal space, YOU are the one being rude. Him making unsolicited advances on your psyche isn't rude, but YOU are. These are the kind of fucking animals that you are forced to deal with here.

I hear in Germany the rather civilized population shares my grievances. I've been told about a Wal-Mart being opened there, operated the same way as an American Wal-mart, with the store greeters and everything.

The greeters were scaring the German shoppers away with their typical "Hi, how are you?" greet. One guy on camera said that he's gonna bust a cap if one more person asks him how he's doing. The Germans considered it really weird and rude for a completely random stranger to ask how they're doing out of nowhere.

I much agree with this and don't think I couldn't handle this far more civilized culture.

When I was hitchhiking a 150 KM trip, the only car that stopped (I never waved for anyone) was full of Hutterites (religious German people that live in colony-like communes in Canada). They saw the (A) Anarchy-Hammer&Sickle fuse tattoo on my arm and the picture on the back of my shirt. They knew well I was probably an anti-religious nihilist, but they still offered the ride and we conversed like normal people on the way.

I have much respect for German people.

> Mostly, it's about a 10% performance gap between XR and JPEG 2000.

I just tried all three formats. The JPG and JPEG-XR both 171KB and the JPEG2000 image 169 KB, all of the same image of course. JPG and JXR encoded with GIMP and the J2K pic with Photoshop CS6.

The JPEG-XR was worse quality, though it preserved high-freq edges better but completely smeared low-freq details in more bland areas and had annoying checkerboard patterns everywhere. SSIM 0.9628.

The JPEG2000 image was noticeably better quality in high-frequency areas and edges but low-frequency edges like the creases in clothing looked badly downsampled and noise was completely smeared so my skin looked like plastic. JPEG did better on preserving noise, grain and low-freq details.

Objectively, I confess that 2000 was somewhat better quality. Subjectively, I say it looked worse because med and low-freq details are more visually important to me.

SSIM of the JPEG2000 image was 0.9694 compared to 0.9634 for JPEG, which is exactly a 20% increase as you estimated. Seems SSIM does well.

> Because it's Microsoft. JPEG XR is basically HDPhoto from Microsoft, 

How did they get away with using your trademark?

> That depends on the implementation. The trouble is that most (if not 
> all) of the stupid open source implementations optimize for PSNR which 
> provides impressive performance numbers, but less impressive pictures. 

Yeah, they should optimize for SSIM. On the other hand, SSIM-optimized H264 video encodes tend to look worse.

> It's not that one cannot change that, just that nobody is willing to put 
> that into an open source tool (including me - I don't bother with other 
> people's bad software, it's enough if I do it right.)

The open-source community has its drawbacks. A lot of them are neurotic technophiles who stick their cock in the toaster a little too much.

Sometimes proprietary is the way to go because at least they are motivated to put the extra effort.
 
> Macroblocks? XR has macroblocks. JPEG only has blocks. JPEG 2000 doesn't 
> have any blocks. (Well, to be fair, it has codeblocks, but these do not 
> add artifacts. And it has tiles if you're ignorant enough to use them.)

Well, I usually call that artifact "quilting", I hate calling it blocking. "Blocky" makes more sense to describe pixelated video.
 
> But if you prefer blocks, you're probably in an exceptional position or 
> you got used to the block artifacts. It's not that this wasn't tested on 
> subjective tests, for example by the EPFL.

I'd go with #2. As I'm nearing the end of adolescence, I'm getting less open to changes. I tried watching 60fps video and I hated it because it looked "fake". Though I don't hate high FPS on video games as they always ran at that rate.

Honestly though, JPEG2000 doesn't make any effort to preserve some details such as the noise that prevents our skin from looking plastic. Without the blocking artifacts (which add high-frequency detail to blurry pics) the pic looks way too smooth and fake.

> But probably correct. Buying a bigger disk could well solve the problem. 
> If not, I wonder what the problem is - because then storing the images 
> is not the problem as a solution for this was given.

A bigger disk is not a faster disk. On my first computer which had a 2GB HDD, I was getting sequential reading speeds of 5 MB/s, the 50KB 800x600 pictures would open instantly and thumbnail generation was instant. Now this 2TB HDD of 1000 times more space has sequential reading speeds of about 150 MB/s, the thumbnails do not generate automatically on the 4MB pics, nor do they open instantly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1471

Am 27.07.2012 23:56, schrieb Industrial One:
> I found a batch plugin for GIMP and it worked perfectly. On a quality setting of 90 and resizing by half, I have reduced the 2 GB to 200 MB.
>
> Thanks for all the other suggestions though, I'll keep 'em in mind. ThumbsPlus was pretty good but it lacked the option to use Floating point instead of integer for the encoding.
>
> On another note, JPEG-XR BLOWS. Same quality at the same filesize my ass, it was worse quality at the SAME size.

To be fair, it also pretty much depends on the implementation. I hope 
you didn't get the HDPhoto kit because that's not even JPEG XR. The 
reference software is, well, following the specs, but not much more. One 
can do a bit better, but the possibilities to optimize it are comparably 
small compared to what one can do with JPEG 2000.

> Would a foreigner like me get funding for college there or at least have a reasonable job on the corner?

Universities are here for free (you pay a small fee to the students' 
union, and you need to pay housing of course, but lectures are free). 
Jobs are more of a problem. IT jobs are probably *exactly now* a lesser 
problem, but see below - we're just ahead of the next crisis, so this 
will change very soon.

> I've always been fond of Germany and its culture. Solid, hard-working, educated and self-respecting people, unlike these hideous, incestuous redneck freaks in America, still practicing the outdated, 13th century Virtue Ethics.

That's probably how it used to be 50 years ago. It no longer is. Too 
many people making too many words about too little action.
We are, still, doing better than the rest of Europe here, but I'm not 
sure how long that is going to continue. Europe is going to crash real 
soon now (after all, we cannot pay for everything) and even politicians 
realize now that the system is not going to work anymore. Bad decisions 
made by people that had visions, but no plan. (Or as one of our 
ex-chancellor said about 40 years ago: "If you have a vision, go see a 
doctor.").

>> Mostly, it's about a 10% performance gap between XR and JPEG 2000.
>
> I just tried all three formats. The JPG and JPEG-XR both 171KB and the JPEG2000 image 169 KB, all of the same image of course. JPG and JXR encoded with GIMP and the J2K pic with Photoshop CS6.

That doesn't say much. First, it is a rate-distortion problem. So you 
need to compare at the same rate. This is only approximately correct for 
the numbers you gave. Second question is how you define distortion - 
this is the hard part of the problem. Very disappointingly, many 
implementers confuse "quality" with "mean square error", mostly because 
it is so easy to optimize for it.
This means that, depending on the flexibility of the algorithm, some 
other distortion could be implemented to optimize for. Certainly 
possible for JPEG 2000, possible but many more limitations for JPEG XR.

> The JPEG-XR was worse quality, though it preserved high-freq edges better but completely smeared low-freq details in more bland areas and had annoying checkerboard patterns everywhere. SSIM 0.9628.

Also a matter of the settings. So for example, it depends on whether you 
have the block overlap filter on. With the filter on, the PSNR is 
better, and the visual quality is better at lower bitrate, but at higher 
bitrate the situation is somewhat different and it "looks" better 
(though it doesn't "measure better") with the overlap filter off. Just 
to give you one hint.

> The JPEG2000 image was noticeably better quality in high-frequency areas and edges but low-frequency edges like the creases in clothing looked badly downsampled and noise was completely smeared so my skin looked like plastic. JPEG did better on preserving noise, grain and low-freq details.

See above. I don't know which implementation you used, probably the JJ 
or the jasper. Neither of the two optimize for visual quality, but only 
for mean square error. I have a couple of images where it really makes 
quite a difference.

> Objectively, I confess that 2000 was somewhat better quality. Subjectively, I say it looked worse because med and low-freq details are more visually important to me.
>
> SSIM of the JPEG2000 image was 0.9694 compared to 0.9634 for JPEG, which is exactly a 20% increase as you estimated. Seems SSIM does well.

If you believe more in SSIM than PSNR: It is also easy to optimize JPEG 
2000 for SSIM (had a 2008? paper on that in the DCC). If you believe in 
SSIM, then it is then doing the right thing. Do the images look better? 
Nope - they look different. Such objective quality indices give you 
hints and directions, but not a final answer. Finally, trust subjective 
tests, i.e. the eyes of observers.

>> Because it's Microsoft. JPEG XR is basically HDPhoto from Microsoft,
>
> How did they get away with using your trademark?

It's not *my* trademark. It is possibly the "trademark" of the ISO SC29, 
"trademark" in quotes. Actually, it is not a trademark at all, in a 
legal sense. They approached the JPEG because we had a call on "advanced 
image coding". Many people believed that MS would have the power to push 
a format to the market, as after all it offered a couple of features 
that were interesting (lossless and lossy integrated, higher bitdepths), 
though I afraid many studied the format not careful enough, and unlike 
JPEG 2000, it is very unorthogonal. (There are only a limited set of 
possible configurations available, each of them is encoded by a UUID. So 
you can do 6 bits per pixel, 8 bits per pixel, 16 and 10 bits per pixel, 
but not 9 or 11 because there is no UUID for it. Wierd! I would have 
never designed a format in such a way.)

There are many voices in the JPEG, and getting a format to the market is 
also an important factor when starting a standardization activity.

As it turned out, JPEG XR was also a struggle of Microsoft against 
Microsoft, and MS itself didn't have the power to move itself - so for 
example, even as off today, they use the format extension ".wdp" for 
HDPhoto, so I suspect they currently might not even have a JPEG XR at 
all but only re-use the old HDPhoto kit (with many serious errors in it, 
and not fully compliant). And it was finally a struggle of MS against 
the rest of the market. Microsoft XPS against Adobe PS, Microsoft JPEG 
XR against JPEG - it is always an uphill fight even a giant like MS 
cannot win - basically because you are fighting against the resilience 
of people to change.

Thus, I'm happy that after years of small pushing and lobbying, we are 
finally again on track - at least from my point of view - and so 
something people will (hopefully) pick up. See the post below.

That does not mean we did anything bad as far as JPEG 2000 is concerned, 
I still appreciate its design. Just marketing failed, and it didn't fit 
into any immediate market needs, so it is only present in some niches 
(medical, digital cinema).

>> That depends on the implementation. The trouble is that most (if not
>> all) of the stupid open source implementations optimize for PSNR which
>> provides impressive performance numbers, but less impressive pictures.
>
> Yeah, they should optimize for SSIM. On the other hand, SSIM-optimized H264 video encodes tend to look worse.

See? (-: Don't do that either. SSIM has a couple of flaws as well. It is 
probably better, though not much. SSIM has no serious CSF model, and the 
implied masking model is also wrong (the wrong power law). It would take 
longer to explain all that, but no, SSIM is not the right index to 
optimize for either. Probably better, but certainly not right.

>> It's not that one cannot change that, just that nobody is willing to put
>> that into an open source tool (including me - I don't bother with other
>> people's bad software, it's enough if I do it right.)
>
> The open-source community has its drawbacks. A lot of them are neurotic technophiles who stick their cock in the toaster a little too much.

It depends pretty much. Too much ego, and and not enough feeling for the 
problem of the customers. As far as the compression codecs go, probably 
not enough background either.

> Honestly though, JPEG2000 doesn't make any effort to preserve some details such as the noise that prevents our skin from looking plastic. Without the blocking artifacts (which add high-frequency detail to blurry pics) the pic looks way too smooth and fake.

As said, "it depends". I personally don't want to mess with the open 
source implementations (Jasper is desperately broken, and I already have 
one implementation to look at, thank you, I don't need another). But 
even there, the trouble is marketing it: If you can't put a number on 
it, you cannot sell it. So marketing puts the PSNR number on it - 
unfortunately, it's the wrong number, so customers are disappointed, and 
marketing does not have the knowledge to understand the difference 
between quality and PSNR. So no, CSF weighting that improves visual 
quality is not in the products. Bummer!

>> But probably correct. Buying a bigger disk could well solve the problem.
>> If not, I wonder what the problem is - because then storing the images
>> is not the problem as a solution for this was given.
>
> A bigger disk is not a faster disk. On my first computer which had a 2GB HDD, I was getting sequential reading speeds of 5 MB/s, the 50KB 800x600 pictures would open instantly and thumbnail generation was instant. Now this 2TB HDD of 1000 times more space has sequential reading speeds of about 150 MB/s, the thumbnails do not generate automatically on the 4MB pics, nor do they open instantly.

In most cases bigger also implies faster, though I agree that it doesn't 
scale proportional. A SSD helps a lot (though it means spending $$$ for 
bigger, but it is worth it).

So long,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1458

Am 25.07.2012 22:46, schrieb Industrial One:
> Richter, I'm not familiar with Linux and don't have it installed, I can't create a bash script.

Then, what about learning it?

http://linuxconfig.org/Bash_scripting_Tutorial

Or use any other scripting tool you like. Laziness is not an excuse. I'm 
pretty sure if you do a google on netpbm, you find also versions for 
windows.

> I guess J2K is out of the equation. But do I understand right that XR would be even lower quality?

Mostly, it's about a 10% performance gap between XR and JPEG 2000.

> If J2K was released in 2000, why the hell does Vista/7 support XR but not 2000? Confuzzling.

Because it's Microsoft. JPEG XR is basically HDPhoto from Microsoft, 
plus a couple of fixes for problems MS did not spot, though the JPEG did 
(amonst them, I did.).

> I never was too impressed with J2K anyway. At the same size as JPG, it looked blurrier.

That depends on the implementation. The trouble is that most (if not 
all) of the stupid open source implementations optimize for PSNR which 
provides impressive performance numbers, but less impressive pictures. 
It's not that one cannot change that, just that nobody is willing to put 
that into an open source tool (including me - I don't bother with other 
people's bad software, it's enough if I do it right.)

>The macroblocking artifacts are far more pleasant on the eyes IMO,

Macroblocks? XR has macroblocks. JPEG only has blocks. JPEG 2000 doesn't 
have any blocks. (Well, to be fair, it has codeblocks, but these do not 
add artifacts. And it has tiles if you're ignorant enough to use them.)

But if you prefer blocks, you're probably in an exceptional position or 
you got used to the block artifacts. It's not that this wasn't tested on 
subjective tests, for example by the EPFL.

> Dude, you are a fuckin moron.

But probably correct. Buying a bigger disk could well solve the problem. 
If not, I wonder what the problem is - because then storing the images 
is not the problem as a solution for this was given.

So long,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1451

Am 25.07.2012 05:50, schrieb Industrial One:
> Hoping to hear from Richter on this.
>
> What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage.
>
> So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest.
>
> Should I start using a more modern image format like JPEG-XR or JPEG2000? If so, can they be made compatible with WinXP? I use MSPaint to view images and the Windows Image viewer for viewing multiple images. I hate using dedicated programs for simple viewing, they take forever to load.

First, to rescale the images, I would just use a tiny script that goes 
over the images, decompresses them, then runs pnmscale on them (freely 
available from the netpbm software library), then compresses them again 
to a quality that is sufficient for your needs. This is a five-minute 
minimal programming job in bash. This will have the highest benefits.

Recompressing with JPEG 2000 would offer probably a benefit of 20%, so 
that's probably not sufficient. Recompressing with XR would benefit even 
less, and there are even less tools available for this format so I 
wouldn't bother.

Archiving the images is another option. Compressors like StuffIt or 
packJPEG can offer another 10-20% gain and will provide a lossless 
compression into an archival format if this is what you need.

JPEG 2000 would allow to package images into a multi-codestream format, 
though I believe the software library that is able to handle such 
formats is limited. Available free software certainly does not support this.

Uploading to a cloud server might be an option as well, or buying a 
bigger disk might also be an option. (-;

Greetings,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1453

"Industrial One" <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:34f23fbb-2893-4226-a84d-01c24c754dbe@googlegroups.com...
> Hoping to hear from Richter on this.
>
> What's a good program that can do operations including compression on 
> multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, 
> which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture 
> with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. It's 
> so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, 
> they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage.
>
> So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply 
> compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go 
> with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest.
>
> Should I start using a more modern image format like JPEG-XR or JPEG2000? 
> If so, can they be made compatible with WinXP? I use MSPaint to view 
> images and the Windows Image viewer for viewing multiple images. I hate 
> using dedicated programs for simple viewing, they take forever to load.

    Help a rude unrewarding jackass or simply respond to help the group a 
tad?

    Well, you've posed the question, but I answer for the group.
    You see, I also, am a jackass. But I am a HELPFUL Jackass.
    You should consider the disadvantages of being an UNHELPFUL Jackass in 
the future, I suggest.

IRFANVIEW
(Using the BATCH PROCESSING MODE)
http://www.irfanview.com/

IRFANVIEW PLUGINS
http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm
(Useful program plugins for Irfanview)

    If you wish to BATCH CONVERSION a bunch of files to a set file size (for 
website reposting), then download & install the IFRANVIEW Plugins to your 
computer as well.  The JPEG/GIF conversion for OUTPUT FORMAT OPTIONS (with 
plugins) includes a SET FILE SIZE checkbox. This is available with the RIOT 
Plugin included in the Irfanview Plugin install pack.  The RIOT Plugin batch 
compresses the image file until it is below the kilobyte size you type into 
the dialog box, then it finishes or in batch processing, moves onto the next 
file.  This may not result in image files with quality levels you wish to 
keep, so beware.

    Other ways you can manually access this function is to load up an 
individual image file, click FILES/"Save for Web..." (This is also an 
IRFANVIEW Plugin). Here you have a much better estimation of the final 
output quality through the output preview window, but you will not know for 
certain until you actually save the file (preferably under a new name) then 
view the finished file.

    After installation, either click "FILES"/"BATCH CONVERSION/RENAME" or 
hit the "B" key.
    Find your files that you wish to convert (the main batch window is 
edge-drag resizable), select them using click-dragbox or click+shift (a run) 
or click+ALT (to select/deselect individual files). If you do not click the 
ADD button, then no files will be processed.

    Pay note to the "OUTPUT DIRECTORY FOR RESULT FILES".
    This allows you to process the files and copy or move those output files 
to another directory.
    You can also simply click the "USE CURRENT ("LOOK IN") DIRECTORY.
   This allows the files to be processed in the same directory that they 
were selected from.

    If you wish to BATCH RENAME the files, then type your rename pattern 
string into the "NAME PATTERN" dialog window.
    Clicking the OPTIONS button next to that dialog window will give you 
more renaming options, clicking the HELP button in the OPTIONS button window 
will inform you how to create more complex renaming patterns than just 
renumbering patterns.  If you are uncertain of the output results when 
trying this for the very first time, I STRONGLY SUGGEST you click the "RUN 
TEST RENAME" button to verify that the files to be renamed are renamed 
correctly.  This will only simulate the operations of renaming to verify 
that you have entered your renaming pattern correctly.

    If you wish to BATCH CONVERSION your files, then the "NAME PATTERN" 
dialog window will be greyed out and the "OUTPUT FORMAT" window will become 
active.  Depending on your chosen file format conversion target type, the 
choices shown in the OPTIONS button window will vary.
    I STRONGLY SUGGEST that you only run your BATCH CONVERSION processes on 
copies of your original image files unless you want to risk permanently 
altering them. Clicking the "OVERWRITE EXISTING FILES" or "DELETE ORIGINAL 
FILES AFTER CONVERSION" is a dangerous choice if you are uncertain that the 
results will please you or that you may require the original files at the 
original resolution later for some purpose.  You've been warned so don't 
come crying to me or the program author.

    You can also do BATCH CONVERSION & RENAME and all of the dialog boxes 
will become ungrey and inputable.

    If you click the checkmark box for "USE ADVANCED OPTIONS (FOR BULK 
RESIZE...), then the ADVANCED button will become active.  This is your most 
powerful simple bulk processing choice.
    In the "SET FOR ALL IMAGES:" window (activated by the ADVANCED button, 
you will have many choices which only become active if you click the 
checkmark boxes next to those choices.

    For example, you can click the CROP checkmark box and crop all of the 
images to a uniform Width & Height, with the choice of how many pixels from 
a chosen corner to be displaced from.

    You can click the CHANGE COLOR DEPTH checkmark box and reduce or 
increase the color depth of all the images uniformly with dithering options.

    You can click the RESIZE checkmark box and set a uniform new resizing 
width/height for all of the images or scale proportionally to one side 
alone.  You can also resize all images by a uniform percentage.

    You can change the DPI settings by clicking the "SET NEW DPI VALUE"  if 
you enter a value into the box, otherwise you can clear it and leave it 
blank following a previous operation.

    You can batch rotate the images by 90 degree turns or simply flip the 
images by clicking the correct checkboxes.  Or you can do a custom rotation 
angle for all the images by clicking the FINE ROTATION checkbox and entering 
a value in the dialog box to the righthand side of that text.

    The only problem I have found is that the "CUSTOM PROCESSING ORDER" 
checkbox click window does not allow any useful functions.  However, if you 
are paying attention, the window list box to which you ADD your filenames to 
be processed has options to MOVE UP, MOVE DOWN, REMOVE, SORT FILES, and even 
load a premade TEXT FILE processing list.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1468

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:47:50 AM UTC, George Johnson wrote:
>     Help a rude unrewarding jackass or simply respond to help the group a 
> tad?
> 
> 
> 
>     Well, you've posed the question, but I answer for the group.
> 
>     You see, I also, am a jackass. But I am a HELPFUL Jackass.
> 
>     You should consider the disadvantages of being an UNHELPFUL Jackass in 
> 
> the future, I suggest.

Blow me GJ, I've helped people out in this newsgroup on many occasions. My internet presence isn't limited to Google Groups. I'm a really fucking generous guy considering my position. Even after I lost everything when the economy crashed and had only $200 in my pocket, I still donated the cost of electricity and my power-hungry CPU to SETI@Home to help hasten their fruitless dork endeavor which contributes nothing to humanity or the economy, only because I wanted my machine to be useful while I was gone outside looking for ways to make money...

...only so their jackmaster staff can delete one of my posts and give an infraction for asking why the hell their new software takes so damn long to complete an iteration (it is my resources they are using for free of course) because I didn't say it how they wanted to hear.

And STILL they have the fucking audacity to send me e-mails begging for donations? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE AND KILL YOURSELVES, WORTHLESS FUCKING FAGGOTS.

This isn't the first occasion of its kind. I also used to do DVD/Blu-ray rips, using the cutting-edge tricks and technology to make it as highest-quality as possible at the lowest possible filesize. 700MB and HD quality, the best, uncontested quality anyone's ever come across, not without some retard permavirgin fanboys always bitching and moaning about the most minuscule shit no normal person cares about.

And then some more of these pasty-faced motherfuckers decided to spread propaganda about my group and even uploaded fake/low-quality rips in my name just to fuck me over because... they objected to the container I used to store AVC video. This not only smeared my good name but the name of the very same codec they promote. So many people went back to downloading shitty 700MB garbage XVID rips after this drama.

And these demented fucktards wonder why they got picked on so much in highschool? For fucks sake go institute a suicide-encouragement program in your country. There might be less retards on my computer screen and higher wages for your people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1470

"Industrial One" <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b2886850-01ec-4800-a3e8-7e7ecbfde7d0@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:47:50 AM UTC, George Johnson wrote:
>>     Help a rude unrewarding jackass or simply respond to help the group a
>> tad?
>>
>>
>>
>>     Well, you've posed the question, but I answer for the group.
>>
>>     You see, I also, am a jackass. But I am a HELPFUL Jackass.
>>
>>     You should consider the disadvantages of being an UNHELPFUL Jackass 
>> in
>>
>> the future, I suggest.
>
> Blow me GJ, I've helped people out in this newsgroup on many occasions. My 
> internet presence isn't limited to Google Groups. I'm a really fucking 
> generous guy considering my position. Even after I lost everything when 
> the economy crashed and had only $200 in my pocket, I still donated the 
> cost of electricity and my power-hungry CPU to SETI@Home to help hasten 
> their fruitless dork endeavor which contributes nothing to humanity or the 
> economy, only because I wanted my machine to be useful while I was gone 
> outside looking for ways to make money...
>
> ...only so their jackmaster staff can delete one of my posts and give an 
> infraction for asking why the hell their new software takes so damn long 
> to complete an iteration (it is my resources they are using for free of 
> course) because I didn't say it how they wanted to hear.
>
> And STILL they have the fucking audacity to send me e-mails begging for 
> donations? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE AND KILL YOURSELVES, WORTHLESS 
> FUCKING FAGGOTS.
>
> This isn't the first occasion of its kind. I also used to do DVD/Blu-ray 
> rips, using the cutting-edge tricks and technology to make it as 
> highest-quality as possible at the lowest possible filesize. 700MB and HD 
> quality, the best, uncontested quality anyone's ever come across, not 
> without some retard permavirgin fanboys always bitching and moaning about 
> the most minuscule shit no normal person cares about.
>
> And then some more of these pasty-faced motherfuckers decided to spread 
> propaganda about my group and even uploaded fake/low-quality rips in my 
> name just to fuck me over because... they objected to the container I used 
> to store AVC video. This not only smeared my good name but the name of the 
> very same codec they promote. So many people went back to downloading 
> shitty 700MB garbage XVID rips after this drama.
>
> And these demented fucktards wonder why they got picked on so much in 
> highschool? For fucks sake go institute a suicide-encouragement program in 
> your country. There might be less retards on my computer screen and higher 
> wages for your people.

    If you want to still do the "Distributed Computing" thing, I am a BOINC 
processor node.

    I do DOCKING@HOME, ROSETTA@HOME, POEM@HOME.
    I also do Primeboinca (easiest & quickest way to find primes is the 
sieves, next obvious is Cyclic Primes AKA Reptend Primes) & the Sudoku for 
giggles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_reptend_prime

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1460

Industrial One wrote:
> Hoping to hear from Richter on this.
>
> What's a good program that can do operations including compression on multiple images? I just noticed my new camera folder album exceeded 2GB, which is ridiculous. I've noticed the given resolution of taking a picture with every digital camera is always twice the real resolution less. It's so obviously blurry it looks upscaled. Same thing with 1080p Blu-rays, they all look upscaled 720p. Pure waste of bandwidth and storage.
>
> So is there a program that can resize all my images to 50% and then apply compression, preferably the compression being customizable. I always go with 95 for photos I need perfect and 80 for the rest.
>
> Should I start using a more modern image format like JPEG-XR or JPEG2000? If so, can they be made compatible with WinXP? I use MSPaint to view images and the Windows Image viewer for viewing multiple images. I hate using dedicated programs for simple viewing, they take forever to load.


XnView. Free and runs on winxp and can do batch editing. And it is a lot 
better image viewer than MSPaint!

Other than that, others are right, disk is cheap, and you never know 
when you'll want the original resolution to blow it up to poster size.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compression

csiph-web