I am trying to compress my .jpeg image in Photoshop.
WHat is the best way to do this?
I am now calculating the bpp taking the image size in kb, calculating how many bits that is. Then I take the image size in pixel*pixel to get the amount of pixels in the image. After that I divide bits/pixels, to find how many bits per pixel the image has.
But How can I change this number? My guess is to change how many kb the image is, but how do i do this?
Thanks for any help!!
Yes, you can achieve higher compression ratio than 4 bits per pixel. Images with solid color can have rate as low as 0.13bpp.
In fact 4bpp is quite poor compression — it's same as uncompressed 16-color image or half of 256-color image, which even GIF can manage. JPEG can look decent at 1-2bpp.
in general, you cannot "compress" a jpeg image. all you can do is to reduce the image quality further in order to achieve a lower bpp value. jpeg streams are always compressed and they use a lossy compression method. it means that the original image will never ever be reconstructed from a jpeg image. the smaller the file the more information you have lost.
a specific "bpp value" is not, and should never be your target. especially with lossy compression. you should always look at your current image and decide whether it is still good enough or not.
if you still have the original image, try a lossless compression format, like zip-compressed or lzw-compressed tiff or compressed png. i'm sure PhotoShop can handle these formats as well. another softwares like IrfanView (https://www.irfanview.com/) or XnView MP (https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/) will convert your images too.
if you want manual (eg. full) control over your images, you should use command line utilities, like ImageMagick (https://imagemagick.org/) or NConvert (please find the XnView MP link above)
if you have only the jpeg images do not touch (edit & save) them. with every single save operation you lose another bunch of information. you should always work on file copies.
you should always keep your master image (the very picture you took with your phone or your camera).
of course, these rules of thumb will not answer your original question.
Related
There are many programs that claim to reduce the size of a .png file but none of the well known ones, optipng , pngcrush , pngquant, allow me to shrink to a specified size. pngcrush tried its hardest, but the result was still way to big for my needs. For .jpg files, jpegoptim has an -m option that does allow me to shrink to the size I need. The obvious solution seemed to be to convert to jpg, shrink to the right size, then convert back, but that doesn't work either, the reconstituted .png file just jumps back to its original size.
Presumably, this has something to do with the structure of .png files.
Is there any way to get a small png file? This png file is an example of something i need to shrink to below 1K bytes.
Thanks for any suggestions!
Use ImageMagick to reduce the colors, then pngcrush to get rid of ancillary chunks:
magick in.png -colors 8 temp.png
pngcrush -rem alla temp.png out.png
results in a 1621-byte file. If you have an older version of ImageMagick, use "convert" instead of "magick". Using "-colors 4" instead of "-colors 8" gets you a 1015-byte file, but the dithering looks very spotty.
Note that these preserve the transparency in the image, while converting to JPEG loses the transparency and makes the background a solid color.
The only solution to your problem that I can think of is to use .jpg instead of .png. The .jpg format was mainly created for its high lossy compression but still gets a good enough image. On the other hand, .png is going for the full transparency and no quality loss. To sum it all up, .jpg is ideal for getting smaller files if quality doesn't matter, and .png is perfect for high-quality images that quality and colour really matter.
Sources:
http://www.labnol.org/software/tutorials/jpeg-vs-png-image-quality-or-bandwidth/5385/, http://www.interactivesearchmarketing.com/jpeg-png-proper-image-formatting/
I can get that 9.5 KB file down to 3.4 KB using the 8-bit palette PNG format. The image has a transparent boundary, which adds unnecessary pixels and an alpha channel for the whole image which isn't needed, since it's rectangular. After stripping the transparent boundary, eliminating the alpha channel, and using a palette, I can get it down to 3.2 KB.
To get any further, I have to use JPEG for lossy compression. At a very low image quality of 5 (out of 100), I can get it down to 1 KB. It shows some artifacts from the severe compression (look around the prompt > and _ to see some of those):
I have an application (openCV - C++) that grab an image from webcam, encode it in JPG and trasmitt it from a Server to Client. Thwebcam is stereo so actually I have two image, LEFT and RIGHT. In the client, when I recieve the image I decode it and I generate an Anaglyph 3D Effect.
For do this I use the OpenCV...
Well I encode the image in this way:
params.push_back(CV_IMWRITE_JPEG_QUALITY);
params.push_back(60); //image quality
imshow(image); // here the anagliphic image is good!
cv::imencode(".jpg", image, buffer, params);
and decode in this way:
cv::Mat imageRecieved = cv::imdecode( cv::Mat(v), CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR );
What I see is that this kind of encode generate in the Anaglyph image a "ghost effect" (artifact?) so there is a bad effect with the edges of the object. If look a door for example there a ghost effect with the edge of the door. I'm sure that this depends of the encode because if I show the Anaglyph image before encode instruction this work well. I cannot use the PNG because it generate to large image and this is a problem for the connection between the Server and the Client.
I look for the GIF but, if I understood good, is nt supported by the cv::encode function.
So there is another way to encode a cv:Mat obj in JPG withou this bad effect and without increase to much the size of the image?
If your server is only used as an image storage, you can send to the server the 2 original stereo images (compressed) and just generate the Anaglyph when you need it. I figure that if you fetch the image pair (JPEG) from the server and then generate the Anaglyph (client-side), it will have no ghosting. It might be that the compressed pair of images combined is smaller than the Anaglyph .png.
I assume the anaglyph encoding is using line interlacing to combine both sides into one image.
You are using JPEG to compress the image.
This algorithm optimized to compress "photo-like" real world images from cameras, and works very well on these.
The difference of "photo-like" and other images, regarding image compression, is about the frequencies occurring in the image.
Roughly speaking, in "photo-like" images, the high frequency part is relatively small, and mostly not important for the image content.
So the high frequencies can be safely compressed.
If two frames are interlaced line by line, this creates an image with very strong high frequency part.
The JPEG algorithm discards much of that information as unimportant, but because it is actually important, that causes relatively strong artefacts.
JPEG basically just "does not work" on this kind of images.
If you can change the encoding of the anaqlyph images to side by side, or alternating full images from left and right, JPEG compression should just work fine.
Is this an option for you?
If not, it will get much more complicated. One problem - if you need good compression - is that the algorithms that are great for compressing images with very high frequencies are really bad at compressing "photo-like" data, which is still the larger part of your image.
Therefore, please try really hard to change the encoding to be not line-interlacing, that should be about an order of magnitude easier than other options.
I'm saving a large number of small png files for use in a game on a phone, so space is at a premium.
I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the file sizes so I can save things most efficiently, but even after using pngcrush the sizes are totally inconsistent.
I saved a 1x1 image and it takes 3kb. I have another 23x21 image which takes only 2kb. I have two images which are almost the same size, but one takes 6kb and the other takes 13kb. I doubled the image height and copied one image into the empty space of the other and saved that. The combined image is only 11kb!
Why is a 1x1 image larger than a 23x21 image? Why can I combine a 13kb image and a 6kb image and get an 11kb image?
Here are the images I'm talking about (there's a 1x1 pixel in between the 1st and second images. It's difficult to see, so I'll just give the URL: http://g42.org/temp/png/1x1.png):
example http://g42.org/temp/png/hat.png
example http://g42.org/temp/png/1x1.png
example http://g42.org/temp/png/helmet1.png
example http://g42.org/temp/png/helmet2.png
example http://g42.org/temp/png/helmet1_2.png
It's not a compression thing, the problem with the 1x1 image is that it has metadata (added by Photoshop, it seems), a color profile (iCCP chunk). If you look inside the binary, its' the data between the strings "iCCP" and "IDAT", it could be removed and you get a 69 bytes file.
If you reopen and save the file most image viewers (xnview), or use pngcrush, you can strip that chunk. : See it here : http://i.stack.imgur.com/fmOdA.png
And regarding the helmet images: besides other informational chunks (imageReady ads some informational text, as you can see), the difference is due to different formats: the two-helmets is a paletted image (8bits per pixel), the single helmet is a RGB with alpha (32bits per pixel)
PNG compression is based on the same algorithm as zlib and is highly sensitive to the data that is being compressed so you won't see a consistent relationship between image size and file size. In the case of the combined image, it is still bigger than the smaller image and given the similarity of the two halves of the image, the compressor was probably able to reuse a lot of the Huffman tree. I don't know enough about the algorithm to say for certain how it ended up smaller than the other half.
As long as you are not seeing oddities like the 1x1 image, which you seem to have figured out in the comments, I don't think this will make a lot of sense without extensive study of image compression.
There is a great utility called pngcrush
http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/
Compressing to PNG is a rather difficult task - there are lost of assumptions and strategies to try - do we create a palette, or are we better off without it?
PNGcrush essentially bruteforces 100+ different compression strategies, while at the same time trimming useless tags and sections.
PNG has several sub-formats: 24-bit with or without alpha, 8-bit (includes alpha), grayscale, etc. which use different amount of bytes per pixel and have different "compressibility".
Plus PNG supports several compression tricks (filters and gzip settings) which affect how well image data is compressed.
On top of that PNG can contain metadata, which sometimes can be pretty large, like some embedded color profiles.
ImageAlpha converts images to the most space-efficient PNG8+alpha variant.
ImageOptim removes junk metadata and finds best compression parameters.
With a combination of those two your images can be reduced by 30-50%.
I've often wondered, if I load a compressed image file, edit it and the save it again, will it loose some quality? What if I use the same quality grade when saving, will the algorithms somehow detect that the file has already be compressed as a JPEG and therefore there is no point trying to compress the displayed representation again?
Would it be a better idea to always keep the original (say, a PSD) and always make changes to it and then save it as a JPEG or whatever I need?
Yes, you will lose further file information. If making multiple changes, work off of the original uncompressed file.
When it comes to lossy compression image formats such as JPEG, successive compression will lead to perceptible quality loss. The quality loss can be in the forms such as compression artifacts and blurriness of the image.
Even if one uses the same quality settings to save an image, there will still be quality loss. The only way to "preserve quality" or better yet, lose as little quality as possible, is to use the highest quality settings that is available. Even then, there is no guarantee that there won't be quality loss.
Yes, it would be a good idea to keep a copy of the original if one is going to make an image using a lossy compression scheme such as JPEG. The original could be saved with a compression scheme which is lossless such as PNG, which will preserve the quality of the file at the cost of (generally) larger file size.
(Note: There is a lossless version of JPEG, however, the most common one uses techniques such as DCT to process the image and is lossy.)
In general, yes. However, depending on the compression format there are usually certain operations (mainly rotation and mirroring) that can be performed without any loss of quality by software designed to work with the properties of the file format.
Theoretically, since JPEG compresses each 8x8 block pf pixels independantly, it should be possible to keep all unchanged blocks of an image if it is saved with the same compression settings, but I'm not aware of any software that implements this.
Of course. Because level of algorithm used initially will probably be different than in your subsequent saves. You can easily check this by using an Image manipulation software (eg. Photoshop). Save your file several times and change level of of compression each time. Just a slight bit. You'll see image degradation.
If the changes are local (fixing a few pixels, rather than reshading a region) and you use the original editing tool with the same settings, you may avoid degradation in the areas that you do not affect. Still, expect some additional quality loss around the area of change as the compressed blocks are affected, and cannot be recovered.
The real answer remains to carry out editing on the source image, captured without compression where possible, and applying the desired degree of compression before targeting the image for use.
Yes, you will always lose a bit of information when you re-save an image as JPEG. How much you lose depend on what you have done to the image after loading it.
If you keep the image the same size and only make minor changes, you will not lose that much data. When the image is loaded, an approximation of the original image is recreated from the compressed data. If you resave the image using the same compression, most of the data that you lose will be data that was recreated when loading.
If you resize the image, or edit large areas of it, you will lose more data when resaving it. Any edited part of the image will lose about the same amount of information as when you first compressed it.
If you want to get the best possible quality, you should always keep the original.
Please help! Thanks in advance.
Update: Sorry for the delayed response, but if it is helpful to provide more context here, since I'm not sure what alternative question I should be asking.
I have an image for a website home page that is 300px x 300px. That image has several distinct regions, including two that have graphical copy on top of the regions.
I have compressed the image down as much as I can without compromising the appearance of that text, and those critical regions of the image.
I tried slicing the less critical regions of the image and saving those at lower compressions in order to get the total kbs down, but as gregmac posted, the sections don't look right when rejoined.
I was wondering if there was a piece of software out there, or manual solution for identifying critical regions of an image to "compress less" and could compress other parts of the image more in order to get the file size down, while keeping those elements in the graphic that need to be high resolution sharper.
You cannot - you can only compress an entire PNG file.
You don't need to (I cannot think of a single case where compressing a specific portion of a PNG file would be useful)
Dividing the image in to multiple parts ("slicing") is the only way to compress different portions of a image file, although I'd even recommend again using different compression levels in one "sliced image", as differing compression artefacts joining up will probably look odd
Regarding your update,
identifying critical regions of an image to "compress less" and could compress other parts of the image more in order to get the file size down
This is inherently what image compression does - if there's a bit empty area it will be compressed to a few bytes (using RLE for example), but if there's a very detailed region it will have more bytes "spent" on it.
The problem sounds like the image is too big (in terms of file-size), have you tried other image formats, mainly GIF or JPEG (or the other PNG format, PNG-8 or PNG-24)?
I have compressed the image down as much as I can without compromising the appearance of that text
Perhaps the text could be overlaid using CSS, rather than embedded in the image? Might not be practical, but it would allow you to compress the background more (if the background image is a photo, JPEG might work best, since you no longer have to worry about the text)
Other than that, I'm out of ideas. Is the 300*300px PNG really too big?
It sounds like you are compressing parts of your image using something like JPEG and then pasting those compressed images onto a PNG combined with other images, and the entire PNG is sent to the browser where you split them up.
The problem with this is that the more you compress your JPEG parts the more decompression artifacts you will get. Then when you put these low quality images onto the PNG, which uses deflate compression, you will actually end up increasing the file size because it won't be able to compress well.
So if you are keen on keeping PNG as your file format the best solution would be to not compress the parts using JPEG which you paste onto your PNG - keep everything as sharp as possible.
PNG compresses each row separately unless you have used a "predictor" in the compression.
So it's best to keep your PNG as wide as possible with similar images next to each other horizontally rather than under each other vertically.
Perhaps upload an example of the images you're working with?