|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely an encode/decode problem
There must be something unique to this image that some programs
decode just fine but others have a problem. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the jpg specification to know what the problem is. It could be that some programs jpg decompression routines are faulty, and show the lines. Not all decoders are equal. Yet, in my tests with really old software - my thumbnail viewer dates back to 1999 or earlier - leads me to think the problem is actually with Photoshop's encoding of the image. The reason some viewers experience the lines while others don't is because, again not all decoders are equal. Some may be failing gracefully while others are adhering too strictly to the specification and failing badly. Or it could be the other way around - those that adhere strictly are OK, and it's the ones that don't follow the rules correctly which fail. The reason several programs may share the same problem viewing the image is because they all import the same code library. To test all this, somehow we'd have to do controlled tests of encoding that TIFF to jpg with various programs, and viewing all the results with more various programs. How big is the TIFF file? I also have a recent version of PSP on the other computer which can handle 16 bit TIFF's. I'm wondering if that program's encoding to jpg would have any issues. Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely an encode/decode problem
Skywise wrote in news:NvS7q.44$4%.23
@newsfe18.ams2: Yet, in my tests with really old software - my thumbnail viewer dates back to 1999 or earlier - leads me to think the problem is actually with Photoshop's encoding of the image. I take that back. It's got to be in the decoding algorithm of whatever is used to view the image. I checked some of my own JPG's of varying sources, comparing them to how they're displayed in Firefox. ALL of them display differently. None show the stripes, but I think that may be because that particular image just happens to have the right qualities to evoke that. I've been reading a bit on how JPG works and the stripes fit the 8x8 macroblock used in the compression scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpg Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely an encode/decode problem
On 9/1/2011 7:23 PM, Skywise wrote:
wrote in news:NvS7q.44$4%.23 @newsfe18.ams2: Yet, in my tests with really old software - my thumbnail viewer dates back to 1999 or earlier - leads me to think the problem is actually with Photoshop's encoding of the image. I take that back. It's got to be in the decoding algorithm of whatever is used to view the image. I checked some of my own JPG's of varying sources, comparing them to how they're displayed in Firefox. ALL of them display differently. None show the stripes, but I think that may be because that particular image just happens to have the right qualities to evoke that. I've been reading a bit on how JPG works and the stripes fit the 8x8 macroblock used in the compression scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpg Brian Thanks for all the work. I did try my not quite so ancient but just as dangerous IE6 and got the lines. Yes, downloading the file (rather than just copying the image as I foolishly tried) does show they are fine on all my viewing programs. So it is a Firefox/Thunderbird decode issue. Problem is many use those programs so I still need to avoid the issue. It appears Thunderbird uses the same faulty decode even when I insert the image rather than attach it. That allows me to see the lines before it is sent. I'll have to remember to do that (only works in email mode not Usenet) after this. I'm still using older versions of both. I've not tried the latest version 6. I stuck with 3 (which is still supported but not for long they say) since a couple plug-ins I use don't work in the newer ones. Rick -- Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct. Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely an encode/decode problem
Rick Johnson wrote in news:4e6275ee$0$2996$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com: Thanks for all the work. No problem. I really wish I could take the time and/or focus more on my programming and become familiar with the vagaries of image formats. The reason I delved into the TIFF specification was due to a problem I was having with some USGS data, which was in an extension of TIFF called GeoTIFF (needed to eliminate some data stored in the alpha channel). And then when we find a little problem like this with JPG's, it makes me wish I knew more. I did try my not quite so ancient but just as dangerous IE6 and got the lines. Interesting. I used IE5 and had no lines. So we know when the change happened. Although, a possibility, is that it's not IE itself, but the windows system libraries that decode JPG's. I don't know if that's how it's done, though. Again, I don't know enough. I do know enough programming to be amazed that anything as complex as today's software and operating systems can even be done at all. Problem is many use those programs so I still need to avoid the issue. A suggestion, a disclaimer? For example, if I had these images on a website, I'd make a note about possible display problems caused by some software. For most images it appears to be unnoticeable, but for these astropics it seems to be more of an issue. This issue has me curious enough that I would like to spend some more time delving into the issue. I have done some my last post and I have seen some discussion online about this problem, but I haven't been able to nail down exactly what may be causing it. I might have to sneak into the Firefox user forums and post a note about it. They might appreciate it if it turns out to be a bug that no one noticed before. It appears Thunderbird uses the same faulty decode I only use thunderbird for email. I use XNews for usenet. But I might email myself a test pic or two to see what happens. I'm still using older versions of both. I've not tried the latest version 6. I tend to stay with older software myself for various reasons even though I may have more current hardware. For example, I'm using Win2Kpro and XPpro on my two Core2 systems. I believe in the old dictum, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Yeah, there are some things that I do go for the new stuff. When I snagged PaintShopPro, I got the latest and greatest available at that time (can't justify the cost of Photoshop just yet). Same for my audio editing soft and hardware (Adobe Audition 3.0/Echo Layla 3G), but then I'm pretty serious about my (amateur) music. But I'm 'afeared' of MS's offerings past XP, and these OS's are starting to show their age too much. So I'm exploring other options. In fact, as I write this, I'm burning a Kubuntu Linux distro CD to try out. Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's the problem??? | The Avenging Angel | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | October 7th 06 09:32 AM |
YRREM SAMTSIRHC (Use Mirror to Decode) | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 7th 06 01:28 PM |
How To Decode The MER Image Filenames | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | March 13th 04 02:21 AM |