Minion's image guide for retards

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:52 pm

no industry standard for video images, but tiffs are the standard for print. PNG's wouldn't "rape" the image quality as bad as i put it, but you do get better quality with a tiff.

jpeg not rgb? sir, what are you smoking? any file format is rgb, because it's displayed on a screen. anything on paper is cmyk. other than film paper (from actual film), there is no expection.
and jpeg is NOT ment to be printed at all. it's for computer display only. so why the hell would it cmyk
you could cmyk MODE, but jpeg isn't emnt for that.

i challenge you to find a credible source stating otherwise.

[Corran: Locked for misinformation and refusing to listen to input from well-informed members. Please do more research before submitting something like this here.

PS. JPEG is YCbCr, not RGB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg
http://www.jpeg.org/public/jfif.pdf

There are many other colorspaces as well.]

Corran · Post by **Corran** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:18 pm

I'll unlock this thread for now but please be more open to what the other members are saying. You may be a graphic designer but the people here have experience in similar fields as well. Trythil, for example, programs for the open source project Inkscape which is a vector graphics program and he is very knowledgable about digital media.

That being said, I'll add my two cents.

720x480 for full screen is not what you will always need for 720x480 video. Depending on how you are editing and how your project files are set up, 640x480 might be more useful even if your video source is still 720x480. Your video or image editing progams likely have settings that compensate for the PAR you are using. This is important because if you make a perfect circle in a 720x480 image (without compensating for the PAR) and then insert that into a video that will be played on an NTSC TV the circle will become an oval.

I personally like to edit my videos so that what I see is what I get. (If played back on a device with square pixels such as a computer monitor since I am editing with just such a device.) Thus I resize 16:9 footage to 848x480 and 4:3 footage to 640x480 so I can make images with square PARs and not worry about how things will appear in the final product. I can always resize later if the video is going to be played back in a different PAR.

There are more colorspaces than RGB and CMYK. While it is true my monitor presents me with a RGB visual, my computer processes and stores color in a much larger variety of methods. JPEG does not store its data as red, green, and blue values for each pixel and thus is not storing information in RGB. DVDs generally use the YV12 color space to store their data. Each colorspace has its pros and cons. You do lose a bit of quality whenever you change colorspaces so the fewer conversions you make the better.

PNG is indeed lossless. I can save a PNG over and over again and by the 100th copy I will still have the same image with no degradation assuming no colorspace changes are ever made in between each save.

I personally use Tiff as well, but my reasons behind that are simply because it is faster to work with than PNG since you need less processing power to decompress a Tiff. (This may depend since it is possible to specify the compression level for PNG in some image editors.)

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:30 pm

Well... I guess the 'Retard' part of the thread title is accurate...

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat May 13, 2006 8:32 pm

Minion wrote:
Wrong.
read before you comment. i said if you want your image to be full screen.
or are you just expressing hatred for 720x480, and failed to read the word "example"

PNG= not completely lossless. infact, no image format is(note, psd is not an image format, it's a work file). other than a photoshop eps (which nobody uses), no format saves more information than a tiff. fact.

How is PNG "not entirely lossless"? The compression algorithms used in PNG (the Deflate algorithm) is mathematically lossless: what you put in is what you get out, and nowhere in the PNG creation process are you dropping data. Have you discovered a counter-proof? (If so, you'd better tell everyone using zlib -- I'm sure that they'd love to know. Though I think you'd be laughed at even more than you've been laughed at here.)

The only ways that usage of PNG (not PNG itself!) can lead to data loss are:

(1) Colorspace conversion. PNG only supports RGB(A) data. However, this is not a problem that is specific to PNG.

(2) Insufficient precision. PNG only supports up to 16 bits per channel, and represents data as integer quantities; if you are using (say) 32-bit integers or 32-bit floating point, then you will lose data. However, this (again!) is a problem with every image format if your precision needs are sufficiently high.

(3) Color dithering. This is entirely up to the user and is not exclusive to PNG at all, so I don't even know why I'm including it in this list. Completeness, I guess.

Additionally, most people don't need more than 8 bits per channel, anyway, so PNG is entirely sufficient for a huge number of applications. The only things I can think of in which you may want to consider using something else are

(1) highly sensitive print work
(2) photography
(3) film

111x113
either thats a typo or you don't know what dpi is.

That's not a typo. My windowing system (look up Xorg / X11, http://www.x.org) allows me to render text (note, text) at any dpi I want. It is usually automatically calculated from screen size, but it can be force-set.

Indeed, at the moment, here's my laptop settings using X.org 6.8:

Code: Select all

screen #0:
  dimensions:    1400x1050 pixels (301x232 millimeters)
  resolution:    118x115 dots per inch
  depths (7):    16, 1, 4, 8, 15, 24, 32
(...more stuff...)

My comment is directed towards text rendering, not images. However, text and images are highly intertwined in Web design: for example, if you need to render text as images, or are trying to smoothly integrate images and text. If you assume that everyone's screens run at 72dpi, you're in for a rude awakening.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:18 pm

i didn't say everyone's screen runs at 72 dpi. i said it's what people use for posting pictures on the web. saved just about any picture in a website's layout, and 90% of the time, it's resolution is 72dpi.
and yes, tiff is the industry standard for printing. png is not used at any print house i've been in (xerographic for a random example)
and the question about where, i work, i'm a freelancer in orlando

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:43 pm

Minion wrote:i'm a freelancer

Translation: n00b

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:59 pm

a n00b can't freelance and still pay the bill. nobody will pay them

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:03 pm

Minion wrote:a n00b can't freelance and still pay the bill. nobody will pay them

Sure. People who are dumber than him.

Notice how you havn't addressed a single issue that was shot down. You were clearly corrected on the issue of JPEG not being RGB. Did you acknowledge your error? No. Did you attempt to defend your (stupid and incorrect) opinion? No. You just ignored the fact that your ass was handed to you and tried to look smart by going on about the few things that you were only half-wrong on in some sad attempt to save face.

At least demonstrate the balls to stand up and say that you done fucked up and that your 'guide' is useless and missleading and that you were wrong.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:22 pm

i'm just avoiding argueing things that may get the thread closed again. no point in beating a dead horse. but since you insist, here i go.

goto a sports game or somewhere that has a a colored score board. the kind that they can still show crappy video clips on. like "d-fence!"
they have 3 bulbs. red, green, and blue. no others.
reguardless of color profiles, our monitors display red, green, and blue.
of course they can mix together to make different colors, thats what they're made for. and of course color modes exist within this standard, but when you back up, your still staring at red, green, and blue. just displayed in different brightnesses and such.

for example, you can print from rgb, but the final product is cmyk, just printed in rgb mode, because there is no rgb toner or ink. just cmyk.

vice versa for monitors.

you may be looking at an image in a different color mode than rgb (cmyk as an example). your monitor may be displaying cmyk mode, but your still just looking at rgb lights.

understand? hope so, cause i'm done

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:23 pm

color modes* not profiles.