Old-system Jpegs not as clear in Windows 7

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Well, I just looked at a few pictures in IrfanView and in Paint.net, and
the differences were *very* small - in fact, the word "zero" comes to
mind...

Is it possible that you had zoomed in or out in one viewer? That can
affect rendering quite heavily.

I'm wondering if Richard has his getpaint "quality setting" for JPEG
saves (assuming he's using both IV and getpaint to _save_ the screen
captures, not just _view_ them) higher than the default (80%, IIRR) in
IV - or has lowered the setting in IV.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Peter Jason

Perhaps I have become used to the modern better-quality images, but
some old stored ones looked decidedly blotchy - especially the old

"Blotchy" sounds like a loss of colour depth, which could well be as
some have suggested due to differences in your viewing hardware.

colour negatives I scanned years ago with a Minolta 35mm scanner. I
thought that Windows reconstructed all the jpeg images from some sort
of compressed format every time they are displayed, and there is some
loss every time. Originally I wanted to scan them all in the tiff

Yes, they are reconstructed from a compressed format every time.

Yes, there is loss every time this is done.

But No, it isn't cumulative - _unless you are saving the files back
every time_ (which you're not - you said they're on DVD), you're always
starting from the same file.

format but these files are too large. I have about 4000 images
laboriously scanned from old negatives and photos most of which I
can't get back anymore because I gave them back to the numerous
relatives. Now I'm worried.

Don't be - your files will not degrade, or at least if they do, it won't
have the effects you describe. (Make backups occasionally.)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

If the monitor has a 6 bit LCD panel, there could be blotchy or banding
due to the color rendering process at the monitor. They take the 8 bit
value passed along the monitor cable, and then take two 6 bit values and
alternate values as frames are displayed on the screen. The human eye
interpolates the colors, to make something closer to an 8 bit color
rendering.

Are you feeding the monitor with an HDMI cable (such that it is indeed
passing bits along), or via the old analogue VGA type cable? (If it's a
laptop's internal screen, you won't know of course.)

Other monitors with have a proper 8 bit LCD panel (8 bits per pixel, on
each of the three primary colors R, G, B). And those monitors don't need
to dither.

If fed with a video card with 8 bit DACs (and in 24 or more bit mode),
an old CRT monitor might give more colourful pictures, if it hasn't
itself faded. Do you have one to try? (Even with an - external - LCD
monitor, it might be worth just trying it with the VGA cable instead of
the HDMI, though the latter _should_ be better. Or, certainly, vice
versa, if you are using VGA anyway - assuming your system _has_ HDMI
output.)

Naturally, your video card mode setting in the Display control panel, has
to be set to 24 or 32 bit color, so you're not limited at the graphics
card. If you were in 16 bit mode, you might see more banding, because
the video card cannot then represent all the colors properly.
Indeed.

LCD panels can also have problems delivering a good black level. Or
alternately,
if the monitor is in "movie" mode, the monitor can dim the backlight when it
wants to make darker colors (for a mostly dark scene). Such dynamic contrast
usually annoys Photoshop users, who rely on the colors to remain consistent
for the entire session. Changing the monitor settings, via the monitor OSD,
is one way to attempt a correction (turn off movie mode).

(I didn't know about that.)
[]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

They were compressed when you saved them, there is no cumulative loss
each time you display them, however if you edit and re-save them
(sometimes just to rotate them) that will add further losses.

Though for rotation by multiples of 90 degrees, it is possible to save
JPEGs losslessly - in IrfanView for example it's under Options (or
shift-J). [You might need IV's plugins, not sure. It also has a lossless
JPEG crop.]

 

[Ed Cryer]

My default Windows library of desktop pictures seems to consist of jpg
files

Have a look at what Photoshop can do with a digital pic.
The original is the one on the right, me when I was 14 in 1962, taken
with a Brownie Box camera.
http://www.ecryer.fsnet.co.uk/BWtoColour.png

Peter could have some really good fun once he'd mastered the program.

Ed

 

[Andy Burns]

Though for rotation by multiples of 90 degrees, it is possible to save
JPEGs losslessly

It is possible to rotate them losslesly (if both dimensions are evenly
divisible by 8 IIRC) though I think Windows Image Viewer (certainly on
XP) warns you about quality loss if you save a rotated image, so not all
programs do it right.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

It is possible to rotate them losslesly (if both dimensions are evenly
divisible by 8 IIRC) though I think Windows Image Viewer (certainly on
XP) warns you about quality loss if you save a rotated image, so not
all programs do it right.

Indeed; in IrfanView if you rotate and then save, you incur further
encoding. you have to use the special provision.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm wondering if Richard has his getpaint "quality setting" for JPEG
saves (assuming he's using both IV and getpaint to _save_ the screen
captures, not just _view_ them) higher than the default (80%, IIRR) in
IV - or has lowered the setting in IV.

I've done so little with Paint.net that I never even heard of that.

Translation: I'm not qualified to even make a wild guess

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene, you beat me to the punch. I am betting it's the monitor now vs.
then.

To a much lesser degree, I wonder if his mind is playing
tricks on him.

LOL!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Have a look at what Photoshop can do with a digital pic.
The original is the one on the right, me when I was 14 in 1962, taken
with a Brownie Box camera.
http://www.ecryer.fsnet.co.uk/BWtoColour.png

Peter could have some really good fun once he'd mastered the program.

Ed

That was fun. The colorizing is surprisingly believable...

But please tell me which one shows the original orientation

 

[Ed Cryer]

That was fun. The colorizing is surprisingly believable...

But please tell me which one shows the original orientation

Here's one of me and my dad having a picnic on the shores of a lake in
northern Britain.
http://tinyurl.com/aex96

Ed

 

[Char Jackson]

I have been checking some very old (10 years) jpegs I had shored on my
old HDD on the XP system.

Many of the images are fainter and the color seems a bit "washed out".
Is there some setting to fix this, or have the images degraded over
time? What is the best way to store these images?
Peter

Don't store your old hard drive in the sun!

just kidding

 

[Ed Cryer]

I have been checking some very old (10 years) jpegs I had shored on my
old HDD on the XP system.

Many of the images are fainter and the color seems a bit "washed out".
Is there some setting to fix this, or have the images degraded over
time? What is the best way to store these images?
Peter

Many computer graphics cards come with software to adjust settings;
including colours.
NVIDIA, for example, put a full control panel in, and you can get to it
via Control Panel, Appearance and Personalization.

Ed

 

[Ed Cryer]

Many computer graphics cards come with software to adjust settings;
including colours.
NVIDIA, for example, put a full control panel in, and you can get to it
via Control Panel, Appearance and Personalization.

Ed

Oh, and I forgot to add, the same goes for monitors. They often have
colour calibration in their menu.

Ed

 

[Char Jackson]

Here's one of me and my dad having a picnic on the shores of a lake in
northern Britain.
http://tinyurl.com/aex96

Maybe one or both of you should have turned around and looked the
other way. I think you've got something sneaking up on you.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Don't store your old hard drive in the sun!

just kidding

Or if you do, use at least SPF-35 on it.

 

[Joe Morris]

Or if you do, use at least SPF-35 on it.

Nope...you need SPF-0x23 or better.

It has the same effect as SPF-35,but it's packaged for use on a computer and
is therefore significantly more expensive. And we all know that "more
expensive" means "better," at least according to Madison Avenue.

Joe

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Nope...you need SPF-0x23 or better.

It has the same effect as SPF-35,but it's packaged for use on a computer and
is therefore significantly more expensive. And we all know that "more
expensive" means "better," at least according to Madison Avenue.

Joe

OK, thanks for the correction.

I'm used to Basic, so I didn't know about hex. Although I have used
SPF-043, a long time ago.