Smugmug JPGs look quite bad to me...

TalkieT

I remember pretty clearly when I started using Smugmug that I couldn't see any introduced jpg artifacts on my images, and I rejoiced, for I had heard that most places compressed the pics so much they introduced obvious visible artifacts...

Well, over the last few months I have been kinda bugged that I can now see obviousl JPG artifacts (halos etc) so just now I went and had a look at one of my sharpest pics...

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/50157531-L-4.jpg

Check out the wing at the back... It's got a very distinct halo... I went and had a look at the original (4.3mb / 6mp) image and there's no hint of the halo...

I presume this is a business decision balancing quality vs the huge bandwidth bill you guys must face... I can't imagine that the disk saved (82k for the Large version vs maybe 110k for one with less halation) is a big deal when you do a great job of storing all the original files as well...

Is this a quality issue I'm just going to have to live with, or maybe have you been a bit aggressive on the ol' jpg compression?

Cheers - Neil Gardner

devbobo

Hey Neil,

Are you referring to the very minor haloing on the tail fin ?

If you are, I would hardly call it bad...i had to get my head up close to the screen to even see it.

Cheers,

David

TalkieT

Afraid so...
Yep, I am... It also appears on a lot of my other photos (in the F1 gallery I noticed it recently)

http://www.nzsnaps.com/gallery/1337269/1/63085090/Large

Around the wing again, and the tape , plus the front tyres...

http://www.nzsnaps.com/gallery/1337269/1/63085451/Large

Top of the steering wheel...

In fact, it's in most photos...

Perhaps calling it "quite bad" is an overstatement, but it's definitely worse than when I joined 12 months ago...

I guess I'll learn to live with it.

Cheers - N

jfriend

Can't see it

TalkieT wrote:

Is this a quality issue I'm just going to have to live with, or maybe have you been a bit aggressive on the ol' jpg compression?

I can't see what you're talking about. I'm not saying it isn't there, just that one viewer's opinion that, even when you tell me what to look for, I can't see it and I'm usually pretty picky.

DodgeV83

I don't see it either and I'm on an LCD screen that would really eggagerate it.

3rdPlanetPhotography

I've only done this for about 15 years so I cannot say that I'm any expert! I do not see anything like that on my system. I think you are being extremely too critical if you are searching for something so small that most people cannot see it. My opinion is maybe there is some video issue on your end or there isn't going to be any service that will please you.

I think your photos are very nice and they look fine on this end. I can say that SmugMug is the absolute best I've come across. Many services have many different options but IMHO none come close to Smugmug for image handling and of course Customer Service.

Scott

peestandingup

I can see it, but im using a pretty big HD monitor, but its there. More obvious in the second cockpit photo.

Its around the edges of the steering wheel, in the center where it says "OMP" in yellow & all over the black dash directly in front of the wheel.

The first pic isn't as bad, but look at where the front wheel meets the guys black pants. And the guy next to him where his white shirt meets the grey wall above his shoulder.

Allen

Am I missing something? Guess I don't really know what artifacts look like.
To me the halos look like oversharping or CA. They show where there is abrupt
light to dark change.

From someone that has no idea what they're talking about.:D
Al

peestandingup

Yeah, im no expert either. From what I have saw in the past, they do look like compression artifacts though. Far from being bad to most people, but if you look for them, they are there. Maybe more noticeable on bigger resolution monitors.

As monitor resolutions increase, this may become more of an issue over time.

Andy

TalkieT wrote:

I remember pretty clearly when I started using Smugmug that I couldn't see any introduced jpg artifacts on my images, and I rejoiced, for I had heard that most places compressed the pics so much they introduced obvious visible artifacts...

Well, over the last few months I have been kinda bugged that I can now see obviousl JPG artifacts (halos etc) so just now I went and had a look at one of my sharpest pics...

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/50157531-L-4.jpg

Check out the wing at the back... It's got a very distinct halo... I went and had a look at the original (4.3mb / 6mp) image and there's no hint of the halo...

I presume this is a business decision balancing quality vs the huge bandwidth bill you guys must face... I can't imagine that the disk saved (82k for the Large version vs maybe 110k for one with less halation) is a big deal when you do a great job of storing all the original files as well...

Is this a quality issue I'm just going to have to live with, or maybe have you been a bit aggressive on the ol' jpg compression?

Cheers - Neil Gardner

Hi, we actually REDUCED the amount of compression we gave the resized images, about 9 months ago.

http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/03/17/new-features-march-16-2006/

PBolchover

I see that you have disabled originals in that gallery. If the haloes are a particular problem for you, then I would recommend creating your own images at the desired sizes. If you switch on "proof delay", then you could replace these by the originals, prior to any prints being shipped...

onethumb

TalkieT wrote:

I remember pretty clearly when I started using Smugmug that I couldn't see any introduced jpg artifacts on my images, and I rejoiced, for I had heard that most places compressed the pics so much they introduced obvious visible artifacts...

Well, over the last few months I have been kinda bugged that I can now see obviousl JPG artifacts (halos etc) so just now I went and had a look at one of my sharpest pics...

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/50157531-L-4.jpg

Check out the wing at the back... It's got a very distinct halo... I went and had a look at the original (4.3mb / 6mp) image and there's no hint of the halo...

I presume this is a business decision balancing quality vs the huge bandwidth bill you guys must face... I can't imagine that the disk saved (82k for the Large version vs maybe 110k for one with less halation) is a big deal when you do a great job of storing all the original files as well...

Is this a quality issue I'm just going to have to live with, or maybe have you been a bit aggressive on the ol' jpg compression?

Cheers - Neil Gardner

I don't see a quality issue myself, but I'll bet if you were to upload that same photo today, it would look much nicer.

That image # suggests it was uploaded before we made some important changes to improve our JPEG quality, something we'll probably continue to do over time as people's bandwidth continues to grow.

Give that a shot and see what you think.

Don

TalkieT

onethumb wrote:

I don't see a quality issue myself, but I'll bet if you were to upload that same photo today, it would look much nicer.

That image # suggests it was uploaded before we made some important changes to improve our JPEG quality, something we'll probably continue to do over time as people's bandwidth continues to grow.

Give that a shot and see what you think.

Don

Oh cool - I will give that a go... I thought the display images were refreshed from time to time (But then again, I can't see any particularly good reason for it)

http://talkiet.smugmug.com/gallery/1133006/2/123913586/Large

That's a fresh upload, and the original file is available there too... I actually think the new upload is a redevelop from RAW since there's a colour difference, but there's still the slightest of halo visible...

Please, I didn't think this was a big deal - I was just curious if there had been a change... Check out the original sized link to see that it's not in the original.

Cheers - N



And I really didn't mean to come across too negative. I love Smugmug and the support especially is incredible... I was just surprised to see it...

corbosman

Ive seen some of these issues on my photos too. On my 24" LCD at home i thought it was quite noticable. This image for instance: http://uwimages.smugmug.com/gallery/2239325/1/120036723/Medium

On my large monitor I see obvious artifacts around the fish. It actually worried me the first time I saw it. On my laptop screen I have in front of me now, its not as obvious and I really have to squint to see it. I do wish it wasnt there, but thats probably hoping for the impossible

I can see it on my laptop screen on the original poster's images too.. not that hard to see even. But I bet on my 24" screen it would be glaringly obvious.

Cor

TalkieT

corbosman wrote:

On my large monitor I see obvious artifacts around the fish. It actually worried me the first time I saw it. On my laptop screen I have in front of me now, its not as obvious and I really have to squint to see it. I do wish it wasnt there, but thats probably hoping for the impossible

I can see it on my laptop screen on the original poster's images too.. not that hard to see even. But I bet on my 24" screen it would be glaringly obvious.

Cor

Interestingly, I have a 24" LCD as well... I'm surprised monitor size has anything to do with it, as I'm only seeing this on the smaller images, and dot pitch on the big LCDs is usually similar to smaller ones..

Cheers - N

Baldy

TalkieT wrote:

Is this a quality issue I'm just going to have to live with, or maybe have you been a bit aggressive on the ol' jpg compression?

Hey Neil,

We have been sneaking image quality up over the years as we perceive people's bandwidth and computers can handle the extra load. Since you posted these images, we've gone another significant step towards image quality.

The tradeoff is that some of your admirers may feel your site is slower, depending on their connection speed.

BigAl

3rdPlanetPhotography wrote:

I've only done this for about 15 years so I cannot say that I'm any expert!

I'm not sure that jpegs existed 15 years ago - there certainly wasn't too much Web then :poke

georges

jpegs older than the WWW

BigAl wrote:

I'm not sure that jpegs existed 15 years ago - there certainly wasn't too much Web then :poke

Jpegs have been around since the early 1990's. Although they are used a lot on web pages, people have needed to compress images for other reasons for quite some time.

SloYerRoll

Random blurb

georges wrote:

Jpegs have been around since the early 1990's. Although they are used a lot on web pages, people have needed to compress images for other reasons for quite some time.

FWIW
Although wiki gives credit to the www through a swiss developer in 1990. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the US military was using www technology in the mid 80's.
"Joint Photographic Experts Group, the name of the committee who created the standard. The group was organized in 1986, issuing a standard in 1992 which was approved in 1994" from WIKI

Andy

SloYerRoll wrote:

FWIW
Although wiki gives credit to the www through a swiss developer in 1990. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the US military was using www technology in the mid 80's.
"Joint Photographic Experts Group, the name of the committee who created the standard. The group was organized in 1986, issuing a standard in 1992 which was approved in 1994" from WIKI

I thought Al Gore invented JPGs?

Mike Lane

PBolchover

SloYerRoll wrote:

FWIW
Although wiki gives credit to the www through a swiss developer in 1990. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the US military was using www technology in the mid 80's.

As I understand it, the internet (ie the way various computers are connected together) is based on protocols developed by the US military (e.g. arpanet), while the world-wide web (ie websites, and the way in which documents are able to link to other documents) is based on the html language / http protocol which was initially developed by CERN in switzerland.

BigAl

SloYerRoll wrote:

FWIW
Although wiki gives credit to the www through a swiss developer in 1990. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the US military was using www technology in the mid 80's.

No, the US military were using something equivalent to the Internet (DARPAnet comes to mind) in the 80s for file sharing and remote access. Although we often use the Web and the Internet as synonyms, the Web needs the Internet to work. The Web (or rather HTML) was invented by Berners-Lee at CERN in 1990. As far as I know (my own thesis), the first graphical browser was invented in 1993 and from then on the Web gained acceptance by the public for information sharing.

BigAl

PBolchover wrote:

As I understand it, the internet (ie the way various computers are connected together) is based on protocols developed by the US military (e.g. arpanet), while the world-wide web (ie websites, and the way in which documents are able to link to other documents) is based on the html language / http protocol which was initially developed by CERN in switzerland.

Ah, missed your post ...