Guis (and girlies), I need your help

[Protege]

Let me tell you my life story

Last week, I got a private message flaming me :( (I cried literally)

Basically stating that I was wrong about jpegs not making things blurry, so I respond with something like "you're a noob, blah, digital camera, etc" and I got a response with something like "Are you stupid?" (I laughed this time) and it continued with something like "blah pixel layouts, they're going to come out blurry when saved in that jpeg." and then stated if I posted this, I'd get flamed. Woo lets see.

Okay, so I was in Fireworks (IM SUPPOSE TO BE DOING MY ASSIGNMENT RIGHT)

And I created a "pixel layout"

Heres the PNG version:
http://safeupload.com/PNG_VERSION.png

and here is the JPEG version
http://safeupload.com/JPG_VERSION.jpg


To add, "Im pathetic for someones who 17", I returned "im not pathetic, i dont make habbo layouts", sorry if that offended anyone, deeply sorry.

ANYWAY, DO JPEGS MAKE THINGS BLURY?

[Excellent2]

I can't really see a difference :P

[Protege]

Jpegs make things blurry, apparently - dont they Maczorx?

[Mentor]

Sorry to say your wrong on this one mate.

The JPEG format is designed to create small files, to do this it uses a few techniques, most importantly in this case is the fact they are lossy, this means they actually remove /lose information that was within the orignal image. It uses a number of clever algorithms to calculate how much data it can get rid of and spreads it out to the point in photos its near invisable and with a high enough jpeg setting even hard to see in a pixel layout. But if you open up paint and dump the bucket tool, you'll see a few of patches where although things look to be say, one solid colour there actually a few different gradients all used to help compress the image :)

Best bet for tiny pixel layouts is gif, since having a tiny colour pallet helps bring the size down, PNG is also pretty good but normally a little larger (although u do get more colours to play with if you want)

That said, fireworks is pretty high end graphics program, so will manage to get pretty much anything look right, regardless of the format its in :)

[Protege]

My point was against his "Jpegs make images blurry", which in fact they don't.

And he told me to create it in photoshop, so his point is still wrong.

[N!ck]

If made with paint, then yes jpegs don't look good.

It all depends on the compression level. If you put the jpeg at a low compression then it's going to basically look the same as the png but be a similar file size.

[Agnostic Bear]

Sorry to say your wrong on this one mate.

The JPEG format is designed to create small files, to do this it uses a few techniques, most importantly in this case is the fact they are lossy, this means they actually remove /lose information that was within the orignal image. It uses a number of clever algorithms to calculate how much data it can get rid of and spreads it out to the point in photos its near invisable and with a high enough jpeg setting even hard to see in a pixel layout. But if you open up paint and dump the bucket tool, you'll see a few of patches where although things look to be say, one solid colour there actually a few different gradients all used to help compress the image :)

Best bet for tiny pixel layouts is gif, since having a tiny colour pallet helps bring the size down, PNG is also pretty good but normally a little larger (although u do get more colours to play with if you want)

That said, fireworks is pretty high end graphics program, so will manage to get pretty much anything look right, regardless of the format its in :)

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

No.

[Mentor]

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

No.
Urmm, Yes?

But if you wana make an idiot of yourself fine, lets get technical.

The JFIF file format that images with the jpeg extension are stored in (JFIF is the format, JPEG is actually the name of the lossy compression method they use) takes its name from the Joint Photographic Experts Group.

Aside from Jfif (jpeg) the Joint Photographic Experts Group (notice this also spells jpeg) have created a number of other, less popular formats. It was one of these formats you found, which you may have figured out had you bothered to read any of the article since it states of the first line of the top section

"Lossless JPEG was developed as a late addition to JPEG in 1993, using a completely different technique from the lossy JPEG standard"

To sum up, im correct. Next time you try to look smart using wikipedia, RTFA :rolleyes: .

[Agnostic Bear]

Urmm, Yes?

But if you wana make an idiot of yourself fine, lets get technical.

The JFIF file format that images with the jpeg extension are stored in (JFIF is the format, JPEG is actually the name of the lossy compression method they use) takes its name from the Joint Photographic Experts Group.

Aside from Jfif (jpeg) the Joint Photographic Experts Group (notice this also spells jpeg) have created a number of other, less popular formats. It was one of these formats you found, which you may have figured out had you bothered to read any of the article since it states of the first line of the top section

"Lossless JPEG was developed as a late addition to JPEG in 1993, using a completely different technique from the lossy JPEG standard"

To sum up, im correct. Next time you try to look smart using wikipedia, RTFA :rolleyes: .
Either way you've been made to look a jackass by saying JPEG makes things blurry, which it doesn't, and Lossless JPEG is an operation mode of JPEG, making it part of JPEG. QED.

[Tomm]

JPEGs does not inheritently make a image blury.

[Mentor]

Either way you've been made to look a jackass by saying JPEG makes things blurry, which it doesn't, and Lossless JPEG is an operation mode of JPEG, making it part of JPEG. QED.

A mode of a compression algorithm != part of a file format?
To make that assertion is like saying since IEEE created the IEEE 802.11 wireless protocol, your old wireless B router is capable of running a wireless N network. :rolleyes:

JPEG compression as used within the JFIF file format, will result in some blurring whether perceivable by the human eye or not. The fact you cannot tell shows the compression algorithm works well. The fact its a lossy compression on the other hand is unaffected by that.

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

[Cixso]

Not sure if this helps, however I remember my lecturer stating that JPEGS do tend to have less quality and are designs to save space which ultimately results in blurred vision compared to other formats.

[iCicada]

Thats an OK layout, And I don't see any blur in the JPEG Image?

[Jam-ez]

If you got a large picture, or high quality picture, and converted it to jpg from png, you'd probably see the difference.

[Protege]

Okay, my digital camera takes photos in jpeg, its 10.1 mp and I cant see blur ;)

[MrPinkPanther]

I did this as part of my A Level Computing Course. The textbook states about JPEG that "some visual quality is lost in the process" so Mentor is correct.

[Tomm]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29621414@N07/2822418030/sizes/l/

Likewise.

As I said before, JPEG does not inheriently cause the image to be blury. However, under certain conditions the image may be blury.


Okay, my digital camera takes photos in jpeg, its 10.1 mp and I cant see blur ;)

We're not talking about it losing quality (Yes, it can lose image quality), just about if the image is blured or not.


I did this as part of my A Level Computing Course. The textbook states about JPEG that "some visual quality is lost in the process" so Mentor is correct.