Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Who made Imageshack so butthurt?

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
ITT we learn who the graffix whores are.

Crooked Bee, what compression is the basic image at? Can you try 60, 70, 80 and 90 (or 10, 20, 30, 40 however that goes) compression and tell me which one you're happy with.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
By the way, 256 color PNG uploaded to Codex Gallery.



Original:

42heroes007.jpg
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
DU, if you were trying to make a case for Codex PNG's being identical to original... I still can't see any difference between Crooked Bee's images (I tried looking closer like Taluntain suggested, but no go. That may be due to high resolution of my display though), but the difference is immediately visible with your comparison shots. Specifically at the sky gradient in the background, and the top of the cliff face (especially the darker splotches).

Though I suspect this is solely due to color, so if there's an option to upload with original colors it should be fine.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I've no idea why some people see the difference and some don't. My desktop resolution is 1680x1050, my video card is HD 4870 1GB. Oh, and no, I'm not looking at the monitor too close.

Jaesun said:
*snip*
Just FYI Crooked Bee, this is how it looks for me. I cannot see a difference.

Well, I can, even in your screenshot...

DarkUnderlord said:
By the way, 256 color PNG uploaded to Codex Gallery.


Looks bad to me.
:thumbsup:

Guess I'm the ultimate graphics whore.

DarkUnderlord said:
Crooked Bee, what compression is the basic image at? Can you try 60, 70, 80 and 90 (or 10, 20, 30, 40 however that goes) compression and tell me which one you're happy with.

According to Greenshot, the program I'm taking screenshots with, the basic image quality is 100. (I didn't compress it further since gallery space is not an issue with Imageshack or imgboot.) I've tried different compressions, and I believe 80 is the one I'm more or less happy with, both quality- and file size-wise. Anything lower than that looks ugh to me.
Here's 80:



Looks significantly worse than 100 to me, and the artifacts are there, but still okay, much better than 60.
And here's 85:



The horrible thing is, I totally can see the difference between 80 and 85. 85 looks better. :/

But yeah, I'm okay with 80.
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
JPEGs should never be saved at anything below 85 anyway, it's way too lossy for any practical application I can think of.

And of course, everything below 800x600 or even a bit more (anything where you can actually see pixels) looks horrible in JPEG regardless of quality. Example:

6f1t1u.jpg


1 is the original screenshot saved as a PNG, 2 is a JPEG saved at 90, and 3 is a JPEG saved at 60. As you can see, everything below the first image is absolutely unaceptable - even at 90, the colors are washed out, the gradients don't look as they should, and the dithering starts disappearing under the artifacts. At 60 the effect is even more pronounced to the point where smaller text would be completely unreadable, dithering doesn't exist at all anymore, and the entire image becomes muddy and unclear.

(as for the sizes, the original PNG was 68k, the first JPEG 26k, the second JPEG 12k)
 

Taluntain

Most Frabjous
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
5,439
Location
Your Mind
Like I wrote a few pages back... 85%, chroma subsampling OFF (zeitgeist's pics above are a good example why) and you're golden.
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
Taluntain said:
chroma subsampling OFF
Definitely. At least then it preserves the colors for the most part - here's the same series of images with subsampling turned off in both conversions.

viikqw.png
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
Sceptic said:
Though I suspect this is solely due to color, so if there's an option to upload with original colors it should be fine.
Yeah, you can do a full colour PNG (below) but file-size wise you're better off with a JPG at minimum compression.



I just went with 256 because we were talking about artifacting, which doesn't occur in PNGs because it's a lossless format. Although in this instance the poor colours probably has more to do with Paint Shop Pro's inability to match palette in a PNG very well. If I use Photoshop for example to compress it to 256 colors and then upload it to the gallery...



The only thing you should notice in that one is some dithering (noticable if you look for it in the blue triangle sail things on the water up the top and around the brown griffin thing on the purple cliff). In this instance it's come from the original file (IE: The one outputted by Photoshop) so if you had good input, you get better output. Again with the original:

42heroes007.jpg


Anyway, the issue I have is as I've chosen to re-write the image, I need to decide what compression to use. If I use no compression, you could upload a nicely compressed image at 60% that looks fine as far as you're concerned, that then ends up being 3 times as large with no compression. I wasn't sure how people would take that given they're paying per MB. For PNGs I can easily detect whether it's 256 or full colour and save accordingly (with no difference that -I- have seen in any of the testing I've done on that) but for JPGs I have no way of testing what image compression the original image is at. 60 looked fine in my tests but obviously your personal mileage varies.

zeitgeist said:
And of course, everything below 800x600 or even a bit more (anything where you can actually see pixels) looks horrible in JPEG regardless of quality. Example:

6f1t1u.jpg


1 is the original screenshot saved as a PNG, 2 is a JPEG saved at 90, and 3 is a JPEG saved at 60.
... and yet that bottom image doesn't look anywhere near as shit as that when you save it as a JPEG (chroma subsampling = none and compression = 1 in Paint Shop Pro) and then upload it to the Codex image gallery:



In fact it even looks better than your 90% compressed version. The only problem I can see with that is some (what I would consider insignificant) artifacting around the numbers in the bottom left and right.

I could bump it up to 85% but given the results I was getting at 60 were fine, I decided to go with that (and keep in mind PHP's GD image function "quality 60" may not be quite the same as "60" in your personal favourite image program). Given that, I figure anyone who notices the difference in any images will probably claim they can notice the difference even if I did nothing to the original image. IE: They'll complain about it anyway and there's not much I can do about it.

Crooked Bee said:
Well, to me, the first picture looks extremely pixelated, and the second one smooth as silk. :? Not sure if my LCD is to blame or maybe I'm just seeing things.
Take a photo of your monitor with both images on screen. Upload photo as full colour PNG.
 

spekkio

Arcane
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
8,278
This thread scares me.

And I was certain that I am a graphicwshore...

Antediluvian said:
Like I wrote a few pages back... 85%, chroma subsampling OFF (zeitgeist's pics above are a good example why) and you're golden.
Seconded. I use 85% compression for JPGs in all my LPs. 60% and less has too many artifacts, 100-85 doesn't give visible difference in quality (sorry, CB).
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Jesus H Christ, I can't see any difference in all of the various FF pics and only very small differences in the racing pics and even those only after staring at the pics for a while.

I guess I'm blind as a bat, then.
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
DarkUnderlord said:
... and yet that bottom image doesn't look anywhere near as shit as that when you save it as a JPEG (chroma subsampling = none and compression = 1 in Paint Shop Pro) and then upload it to the Codex image gallery:

In fact it even looks better than your 90% compressed version. The only problem I can see with that is some (what I would consider insignificant) artifacting around the numbers in the bottom left and right.
The reason for that is that I did the conversions in the original 320x200, the resulting image collage is just resized to 640x400 (well, 640x1200) so that people don't have to strain their eyes and/or use browser zoom to see pixels and artifacts and such. If you resave 640x400 images they naturally look much better.

What I was really trying to demonstrate with the images is not as much the difference in saving quality (if you just upload a PNG/GIF/BMP/whatever and the system saves it in JPG), as the double loss that comes with resaving/regenerating the images in the gallery if the original image is in JPG too. Because then the original would have some artifacts in the first place (regardless of the quality) and they'd just get amplified even more (again regardless of the quality).

(to clarify - the bottom image is actually the first JPEG (quality 90) resaved at quality 60, it's not the original PNG saved at 60 for the first time, to simulate the double saving)

DarkUnderlord said:
For PNGs I can easily detect whether it's 256 or full colour and save accordingly (with no difference that -I- have seen in any of the testing I've done on that) but for JPGs I have no way of testing what image compression the original image is at. 60 looked fine in my tests but obviously your personal mileage varies.
I wouldn't recommend uploading any lower resolution/pixel art/etc images in JPG anyway - those should be uploaded in PNG instead, with this 256/full color detection thing you speak of, and there should be absolutely no issues with those. And for JPEGs, it would be better to test the gallery resaving with some higher resolution screenshots. I mean, I doubt anyone would seriously upload a 320x200 in JPG in the first place?

Anyway, If you want to test the uploading on an 800x600 that still has lots of details to possibly mess up, try this and pay attention to the semi-transparent walls, and the pixel font:

23rsbrk.png
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
DarkUnderlord said:
... and yet that bottom image doesn't look anywhere near as shit as that when you save it as a JPEG (chroma subsampling = none and compression = 1 in Paint Shop Pro) and then upload it to the Codex image gallery
I like this one. So chroma subsampling = off is the key setting when saving as JPEG, not compression level *takes notes*. And yeah I agree there's no significant difference between your upload and the original.

GarfunkeL said:
Jesus H Christ, I can't see any difference in all of the various FF pics and only very small differences in the racing pics and even those only after staring at the pics for a while.
I can't see difference between some, but in others it's pretty obvious. The FF pics for example, you can see the difference if you look at the water: as DU and I pointed out one of them is badly dithered (the 256 color one) while the others the gradient looks fine. For the racing ones, compare the 60 compression that Zeitgeist posted to the others: there's a LOT of artifacting around everything, especially visible around the numbers on the bottom left and around the cars. It's a poster child for bad compression. The one DU posted, OTOH, seems to be a good indication that JPEG does work if you know what you're doing.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Gosh, DU, just add a 80 or 85 compression option, and all will be right with the world. Or am I not following something? :? This thread has become too technical for me.

DarkUnderlord said:
Crooked Bee said:
Well, to me, the first picture looks extremely pixelated, and the second one smooth as silk. :? Not sure if my LCD is to blame or maybe I'm just seeing things.

Take a photo of your monitor with both images on screen. Upload photo as full colour PNG.

:roll:
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
zeitgeist said:
The reason for that is that I did the conversions in the original 320x200, the resulting image collage is just resized to 640x400 (well, 640x1200) so that people don't have to strain their eyes and/or use browser zoom to see pixels and artifacts and such. If you resave 640x400 images they naturally look much better.
Yeah, uhh... that's a bit herp-a-derp. Of course if you enlarge a small image you make all the artifacting obvious. If for example I take the uncompressed JPG, resize it to the proper size, save it at 90% with chroma subsampling and then upload it to the gallery:



And yes, if you enlarge that, you very obviously see the artifacting because derp, you're enlarging all the artifacts that are designed to work at a smaller resolution. As it is, that image looks absolutely fine to me. It's three cars racing at 259 km/h. Point of posting image == made.

zeitgeist said:
(to clarify - the bottom image is actually the first JPEG (quality 90) resaved at quality 60, it's not the original PNG saved at 60 for the first time, to simulate the double saving)
My advice would be to upload higher quality JPGs as even at Q85 I'm still re-saving the image which means double-compression is still occuring. There's simply no way I can avoid artifacting because of the nature of the JPG compression.

As you say, if quality is your concern, use PNG. JPG is not an image format you should be using if you're concerned about the pixellating around your tiny screenshots from your old racing game that you're posting in your LP.

zeitgeist said:
And for JPEGs, it would be better to test the gallery resaving with some higher resolution screenshots. I mean, I doubt anyone would seriously upload a 320x200 in JPG in the first place?
I don't know, you just attempted to show how bad that would be (i dunno why lol?) and I've got another guy whinging about some artifacts around his text in what is a horribly shitty pastel image anyway that anybody who looked at I doubt would choose to complain about some issues around the perfectly clear, readable text as their first complaint...

zeitgeist said:
Anyway, If you want to test the uploading on an 800x600 that still has lots of details to possibly mess up, try this and pay attention to the semi-transparent walls, and the pixel font:

23rsbrk.png

That's the PNG re-saved at 90% with chroma subsampling and then uploaded to the gallery. I can still read the pixel font. Crisis?

Of course if you now re-sized that to x3 its size you'd clearly see the artifacting.

Of course if you stare at it all day you'll see the artifacting.

Of course if you open up the original and take quick looks between the two you'll notice the difference.

If this is the 75th image in your 120 image update though, nobody cares.

Now, here's the same image save at 80% (20% compression) with chroma subsampling then opened up and re-saved as a full colour PNG and uploaded (so there's no double-resampling what-so-ever):



Notice how all those problems that exist in the one above, the artifacting, the colour wash-out in the green text in the bottom right, still occur? In actual fact that's even a bit brighter than the original.

Both have artifacting. Yet both are still readable. Both are poorer quality than the high Q PNG original. JPG is not for tight-asses who want pixel perfection.

Crooked Bee said:
Gosh, DU, just add a 80 or 85 compression option, and all will be right with the world. Or am I not following something? :? This thread has become too technical for me.
No, the point is you'd still complain about that too. If you're complaining about the dithering in a 256 colour image or the shocking colour difference because a grey is not quite as grey as one of the greys in the original or the artifacting around text in a JPG has you screaming in terror, then you'll complain even if I did bupkiss to the image.

Just upload your images as full colour PNGs if you're such a quality tight ass. It's what that option is there for. I'm sure all your LP readers will appreciate your super-high quality images every update that they can study in fine detail and praise for being artifact free.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Yo DU, I like the gallery a lot, and it's pretty nice, but I have one question, what's with the album limit? There's probably a reason for this, likely to do with the server crisis that Cleve was talking about, but I'm wondering if there's any way to get some more sub-albums to satisfy my OC/DC. If not, that's cool, just curious what the reason is, or if there is one.

As for all the image quality stuff...can't complain...then again, I play X-Com at old-school resolution on a 17-inch, widescreen monitor and don't give a shit...so yeah...my graphics-Fu is not up to Codexian standards.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
Album limit is arbitrary. Ultimately I didn't want people setting up 100 albums that are sub-albums of each other for no real purpose when they've only got 5 MB's of gallery space anyway.

At the moment it's just a division of MB's in your account. I think 1 Album per 10 MB's?

How many albums do you want?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Probably 20, including the 5 I've already got, will get me through for awhile, at least to the end of the BG1 LP. If you can bump up the number that'd be much appreciated.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
All right, try that. While I was there I also made a tweak that should make the Quality Fucktards happy.

BUT IT WON'T. MARK MY WORDS THEY WON'T BE HAPPY.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
DarkUnderlord said:
Crooked Bee said:
Gosh, DU, just add a 80 or 85 compression option, and all will be right with the world. Or am I not following something? :? This thread has become too technical for me.
No, the point is you'd still complain about that too.

Nope, I promise I won't. :oops: I said I'm fine with 85. And PNGs are too large, file size-wise. But if it's too hard or time-consuming to add the 85 option, well, okay, whatever rocks your boat.

Oh, by the way. Mr. Murrow used the Codex Gallery for his LP's latest update, and MicoSelva too says it looks bad:
MicoSelva said:
By the way, I see a noticeable difference (for the worse, unfortunately) in screenshots' image quality. I know it is an issue with The Codex Gallery, but maybe something can be done about it?
So I'm not the only one dissatisfied with the current image quality for LPs.

DU said:
BUT IT WON'T. MARK MY WORDS THEY WON'T BE HAPPY.

:roll:

DU said:
While I was there I also made a tweak that should make the Quality Fucktards happy.

Oh, I wonder what that could be...
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
DarkUnderlord said:
All right, try that. While I was there I also made a tweak that should make the Quality Fucktards happy.

BUT IT WON'T. MARK MY WORDS THEY WON'T BE HAPPY.

Gfxwhores... Gfxwhores never change.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
Crooked Bee said:
Hell yeah, I don't know what exactly has changed
It's saving at Q90.

Crooked Bee said:
the quality is okay now
Oh sure, you say that but deep down you don't mean that. I know it hurts you deep inside.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
GarfunkeL said:
Jesus H Christ, I can't see any difference in all of the various FF pics and only very small differences in the racing pics and even those only after staring at the pics for a while.

I guess I'm blind as a bat, then.

Same here. I was planning on making some LPs when I'm done with uni in a month or so, but now Im scared that people will just go "UNACCEPTABLE" if I don't make the pics look as smooth as a baby's ass.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom