Friday (March 12th) Update Forum Software

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/17/2021 at 9:12 AM, LUF Admin said:

Better now?

Was a cache problem on my side.

Andreas

Yes, thanks! 

[LUF Admin]

1 hour ago, piran said:

The issue is not my use of PNGs (allowed).

Sorry, but is the issue.

PNG has a lossless compression thus image files become very big.

I'm not sure if the forum software has changed it's logic, but in my test the file was bloated up to more than 3MB.

JPGs in high quality have almost no visible loss in quality but only a fraction of the data volume.

If you are able to change your workflow – this is it. JPG instead of PNG.

Andreas

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[piran]

49 minutes ago, LUF Admin said:

Sorry, but is the issue.

PNG has a lossless compression thus image files become very big.

I'm not sure if the forum software has changed it's logic, but in my test the file was bloated up to more than 3MB.

JPGs in high quality have almost no visible loss in quality but only a fraction of the data volume.

If you are able to change your workflow – this is it. JPG instead of PNG.

Andreas

With respect Andreas I disagree, this is NOT the issue. Sorry.
The old software posting of a PNG is there in the forum.
The new software does not allow the (re)posting of the *same* PNG.
Logic says the new software is faulty or your operations criteria changes.

Yes, PNG is lossless and files can be big but this is irrelevant. 

>> I'm not sure if the forum software has changed it's logic...
I've just proved above that the new software has changed!
The new no longer completes what the old accomplished.

>> ...but in my test the file was bloated up to more than 3MB.
How? No bloat. PNGs are lossless... *WHERE* is this 'bloat'?

>> JPGs in high quality have almost no visible loss in quality...
I don't use Leica for ALMOST no visible loss. PNG is lossless.

>> ...but only a fraction of the data volume.
Ah... is that the undeclared aim of the new software, silently
economising operations at the expense of Leica image quality?

>> If you are able to change your workflow – this is it. JPG instead of PNG.
LOSSY... this is the new Leica way? I avoid lossy JPGs. My workflow 
will shift to smaller PNGs and I will maintain my own (Leica) quality.
But the forum's new software still has a bug to confirm & resolve.

[piran]

1 hour ago, LUF Admin said:

but in my test the file was bloated up to more than 3MB.

Is your new software trying to compress a LOSSLESS image file (PNG).
This usually/always results in a larger more bloated image file. 

[jaapv]

Actually, the quality loss of JPG only becomes visible when the JPG has gone through a number of decompress/compress cycles. When applied to an edited photo and posted at the forum resolution there is absolutely no need for PNG. 
Your definition of "Leica Quality" would preclude any internet publishing. Only expert printing will do. 

[piran]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually, the quality loss of JPG only becomes visible when the JPG has gone through a number of decompress/compress cycles. 

It seems clear that recompression (decompress/compress cycles) is already taking place or being attempted (poorly) by the new software.

After the bloated output, resulting from badly trying to compress an already compressed file, it seems THAT output figure is being used to gate acceptance of the posted image NOT the original submitted file size.

PNG is compressed and it is also lossless. Trying to reprocess a PNG is hard work, work that your new software is apparently doing badly.

I can achieve actual compression on my PNG ("two walkers") using WinRAR and 7zip but it hardly seems worth the effort w.r.t. reduced size. 

However I have achieved a better 72% compression using PNGOUTwin and got the file size from 2445065 bytes down to1767938 bytes

I am unable to replicate Andreas's bloated compression test that resulted in an apparent bloat to 3MB.

The forum's new software is badly or inappropriately recompressing our PNGs. It should not be doing this. The old software coped better.

[piran]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

PNG recompressed by PNGOUTwin - nominally 2.33Mb down to 1.68MB - two walkers - Marazion beach (Penzance) - Q2M - ISO800 - 1-4000 sec - f8- 2020-12-17 11.32.09(0)

My upload attempt encountered a problem apparently ...1.7mb upload failed
Seems that the PNG's 1.7MB is in excess of the allowed 2.34MB.

Edited March 21, 2021 by piran

[jaapv]

The initial preview is compressed, that may be where the problem lies. However, if you click on the image once you manage to load it, it is displayed in the image box at high quality. Wait for it to load  fully and click the magnifying glass to see the full uncompressed version. (@2408 px and appropriate file size)

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, piran said:

The forum's new software is badly or inappropriately recompressing our PNGs.

I would reword that to "my PNGs". I have a feeling that you are the only member using the format  

[LUF Admin]

12 hours ago, piran said:

Logic says the new software is faulty or your operations criteria changes.

Yes. Operations criteria changed. Unintended.

12 hours ago, piran said:

Yes, PNG is lossless and files can be big but this is irrelevant.

Perhaps this is irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant to the operation of the forum (small problem, we have bandwidth and storage enough) but also to other users.

Not everyone has a big bandwith, not everone has a free download data plan.

12 hours ago, piran said:

The new no longer completes what the old accomplished.

Yes. This is something that happens with updates. BBCodes for example are no longer supported too.

12 hours ago, piran said:

How? No bloat. PNGs are lossless... *WHERE* is this 'bloat'?

The whole internet is based on compression, most data are reduced with lossy compression, especially image formats.

„Lossy“ in the sense of „not perfect identical“. The switch to high quality JPEGs I ask you for reduces the data volume by about 50%. I checked the resulting image at a 800% magnification in Photoshop, and even in the most critical details I wasn't able to see relevant changes – and no one will notice any difference at 100% display in the forum.

PNG may be a good idea for image storage and editing – but for output JPEG is the suitable format.

12 hours ago, piran said:

Ah... is that the undeclared aim of the new software, silently
economising operations at the expense of Leica image quality?

Uhm. No. 

Andreas

[piran]

@jaapv

The initial preview is RE-compressed.

I know about the '+' viewing - sometimes multiple clicks too.

You are careful to say the resulting view is 'high quality'. It's not 'original quality' is it? It's already been re-processed internally and in JPG cycles too.

The file byte counter is in the wrong place (after your internal bloating).

If you must reprocess PNGs it should be done properly - like the old software - otherwise leave them alone and get the file counter thing right.

Maybe I am the only one using PNG files for quality. Exactly what does that say about everyone else? 😊 That they don't care about quality or that they don't know that PNG's open source code favours the sort of compressible lossless B&W bitmaps that the MONOCHROM renders via DNG and Capture One.
Ref: <https://fileinfo.com/extension/png>

@LUF Admin

People's data download plans or low bandwidth are not a reason for your re-processing and bloating.

I can recompress PNG further at the end of my own workflow, it's not a problem for me other than your new software inflicting it on me.

What I cannot fix here is the inappropriate gating of the byte count. It's in the wrong place in the new software. See #107. Even your new software knows the submitted PNG's file size is only 1.7MB - no where near the allowed 2.34MB. 
 

[farnz]

18 minutes ago, piran said:

Maybe I am the only one using PNG files for quality. Exactly what does that say about everyone else? 😊

Ah, so you're the only one of a brigade who's marching in time and everyone else is out of step? 

Pete.

[piran]

No, I'm not and you know I didn't mean that. To be fair I'm usually on the beta or alpha teams and well used to being alone and thoroughly out of step. 😊

[piran]

Have to admit PNGOUTWIN is really OLD and well out of date (2011). It's an old CODEC for windows from ...back in the days. Which is the long way around saying just what sort of stuff is your new software using to get bloat instead of actual compession of MY own PNG files. Might as well call them mine now as I'm apparently the only one using them 😊

Please fix the byte counter that's in the wrong place in your new software (with its dodgy compressor).

[LUF Admin]

Sorry, I hate to be so German direct:

PNG is not the right format for image display in a forum.

I'm not going to invest any work in investigating a special solution for your personal workflow.

Sorry, but sorry no.

Andreas (now switching into weekend mode)

[piran]

Thank you for your polite clarity. I tried to fix but it's not fixable. Please have a nice weekend.

[jaapv]

Posting on the Internet is NEVER original quality. For one thing there is a pixel size reduction to begin with, it runs through a pipeline of software, it is manipulated by the browser (which browser?) of the viewer who will see it on a screen What screen? An old iPad or smartphone, or a high-end 4K? Calibrated? Probably not. Proper ambient light? Unlikely. Nobody will see one whit of difference between your  PNG or a properly handled JPG. 

[piran]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Posting on the Internet is NEVER original quality. For one thing there is a pixel size reduction to begin with, it runs through a pipeline of software, it is manipulated by the browser (which browser?) of the viewer who will see it on a screen What screen? An old iPad or smartphone, or a high-end 4K? Calibrated? Probably not. Proper ambient light? Unlikely. Nobody will see one whit of difference between your  PNG or a properly handled JPG. 

@jaapvNot quite. The image file I post is my take on 'original quality'. Further file handling may or may not cause quality deterioration. If it isn't what I supplied then it is not of 'original quality'. You are later comparing end-to-end quality differences - from capture to where-ever presentation - all of which is correct in its scope and I fully agree with you. FWIW I use a high-end self-calibrating EIZO and work in subdued controlled lighting colour values and levels - albeit for the good of my own eyes!

I *have* listened to you Jaap, I always do. Now done some dedicated tests. I output a 1400px JPG (728KB) and a 1400px PNG (788KB). FWIW the C1 PNG was re-compressed using my circa 2011 CODEC to be less than 10% larger than the JPG. To be honest I cannot find a significant quality difference and I accept your earlier quality assertions - within properly handled image file conversions. The file size difference was barely relevant (<10%). I will now use the JPG posting method as adopted by apparently everyone else. 

Andreas has earlier declared that the use of PNG image files is not appropriate for his forum. I have already pointed out that your new software's compressor does not properly handle PNGs and that the gating mechanism measuring PNG sizes is badly awry. As the apparently only previous user of PNG posts I assume that PNGs will be deprecated as no work is expected to be committed to fix the new software. RIP PNGs 😍

Edited March 21, 2021 by piran
PS: the counter works properly on a 2550px JPG sized 2.33 MB (2,445,312 bytes)

[Keith (M)]

Regarding upload file sizes, since the update I have on more than one occasion tried to post two images in a single post.  My 'permitted' upload maximum is 2.43Mb yet of two files each of circa 750 - 800Kb, I can only upload one with a warning that I have exceeded the limit for the second file.  Something of an annoyance as I then have create a second post solely for the other image.

I export from LR as JPEG, sRGB, long side 2480px, max file size 950Kb.

[andybarton]

That’s a long-standing bug. Just refresh the page and you can post again. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, piran said:

@jaapvNot quite. The image file I post is my take on 'original quality'. Further file handling may or may not cause quality deterioration. If it isn't what I supplied then it is not of 'original quality'. You are later comparing end-to-end quality differences - from capture to where-ever presentation - all of which is correct in its scope and I fully agree with you. FWIW I use a high-end self-calibrating EIZO and work in subdued controlled lighting colour values and levels - albeit for the good of my own eyes!

I *have* listened to you Jaap, I always do. Now done some dedicated tests. I output a 1400px JPG (728KB) and a 1400px PNG (788KB). FWIW the C1 PNG was re-compressed using my circa 2011 CODEC to be less than 10% larger than the JPG. To be honest I cannot find a significant quality difference and I accept your earlier quality assertions - within properly handled image file conversions. The file size difference was barely relevant (<10%). I will now use the JPG posting method as adopted by apparently everyone else. 

Andreas has earlier declared that the use of PNG image files is not appropriate for his forum. I have already pointed out that your new software's compressor does not properly handle PNGs and that the gating mechanism measuring PNG sizes is badly awry. As the apparently only previous user of PNG posts I assume that PNGs will be deprecated as no work is expected to be committed to fix the new software. RIP PNGs 😍

Yes, but that is not the point. The purpose of the forum image threads is to exhibit your work to the member audience, so it will never be your definition of original.