Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]

True enough, but if the image requires sharpening?  JPG is not a good
format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web.  I
would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen
in TIFF and then convert.  I haven't tested but I think it would result in
fewer artifacts.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:34 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes


> conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and
>apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality.  Sharpening at
<point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG

Saving a file as a JPG file at a level of compression involving the least
amount of compression would obviously result in much less lost empirical
information (e.g., actual image data) than to save at higher compression
levels; however, I think it is questionable if the remaining empirical data
would represent maximum quality in all cases.  But to change the existing
data in the original JPG file by sharpening and then resaving the result to
a more compressed state is one of the sorts of actions which tends to
produce the often found JPG artifacts and deterioration of the image that
such a file can produce.

[remainder snipped]

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.