Home > Archive > Compression > April 2006 > Making sure an image file by email can be seen
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Making sure an image file by email can be seen
|
|
|
| Is there anything I can do to increase the chances of the
recipient being able to see the image file I send with my emails?
Sometimes the image of a document which I email from my Eudora
cannot be seen by the recipient.
THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The recipient of my image file *may* be in a local authority or
hospital or other organisation where they're probably using a PC
with a restricted version of Win2000 or WinXP which is supplied by
a central computer department. I would hazard a guess that
they're using an emailler like Outlook or Outlook Express or
Exchange.
I send GIFs or JPGs because they're common formats and they're
sutable enough for creating an image of a paper document. (TIFF
seems a bit unusual and BMP creates too big a file.)
So why might the recipient not be able to see these images?
Is Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer something which comes with all
Win2000 and WinXP systems? I can't really send them a basic
viewer because they probably do not have system rights to install
or run it.
Could zooming the image to read the text be a problem for the
inexperienced recipient?
Could the way my Eudora emailler attaches files be awkward. I
have set it to use MIME.
What is the best approach?
| |
| Pete Fraser 2006-04-10, 7:59 am |
| "Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A177382964B74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> Is there anything I can do to increase the chances of the
> recipient being able to see the image file I send with my emails?
Are you sure the file is getting to them, and is
not being stopped by their firewall?
| |
| Raphael Bustin 2006-04-10, 7:59 am |
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:43:11 +0100, Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote:
>Is there anything I can do to increase the chances of the
>recipient being able to see the image file I send with my emails?
>
>Sometimes the image of a document which I email from my Eudora
>cannot be seen by the recipient.
>
>
>THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
>
>The recipient of my image file *may* be in a local authority or
>hospital or other organisation where they're probably using a PC
>with a restricted version of Win2000 or WinXP which is supplied by
>a central computer department. I would hazard a guess that
>they're using an emailler like Outlook or Outlook Express or
>Exchange.
>
>I send GIFs or JPGs because they're common formats and they're
>sutable enough for creating an image of a paper document. (TIFF
>seems a bit unusual and BMP creates too big a file.)
>
>So why might the recipient not be able to see these images?
>
>Is Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer something which comes with all
>Win2000 and WinXP systems? I can't really send them a basic
>viewer because they probably do not have system rights to install
>or run it.
>
>Could zooming the image to read the text be a problem for the
>inexperienced recipient?
>
>Could the way my Eudora emailler attaches files be awkward. I
>have set it to use MIME.
>
>What is the best approach?
1. What is the actual file size of the image in question?
2. Try sending the image as an attachment to the email,
rather than within the body of the email.
3. What are the image pixel dimensions? What are the
resolution tags set to? If the image is contained within
the body of the email, these will probably matter.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
| |
|
| "Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A177382964B74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> Is there anything I can do to increase the chances of the
> recipient being able to see the image file I send with my emails?
>
> Sometimes the image of a document which I email from my Eudora
> cannot be seen by the recipient.
>
>
> THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
>
> The recipient of my image file *may* be in a local authority or
> hospital or other organisation where they're probably using a PC
> with a restricted version of Win2000 or WinXP which is supplied by
> a central computer department. I would hazard a guess that
> they're using an emailler like Outlook or Outlook Express or
> Exchange.
>
> I send GIFs or JPGs because they're common formats and they're
> sutable enough for creating an image of a paper document. (TIFF
> seems a bit unusual and BMP creates too big a file.)
>
> So why might the recipient not be able to see these images?
>
> Is Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer something which comes with all
> Win2000 and WinXP systems? I can't really send them a basic
> viewer because they probably do not have system rights to install
> or run it.
>
> Could zooming the image to read the text be a problem for the
> inexperienced recipient?
>
> Could the way my Eudora emailler attaches files be awkward. I
> have set it to use MIME.
>
> What is the best approach?
Microsoft Outlook Express (the Windows XP version (IE6)) has a setting that
prevents downloads of attachments. If the setting is active there is nothing
that you (the sender) can do, the setting has to be changed at the receivers
end.
Also, if you send Plain Text Messages, you can not imbed pictures in the
email.
If you send HTML mail you can then include the picture in the body of the
message. However there is a danger of including malicious software in HTML
mail.
The only thing that you can do is include in the body of your message a
statement that you have sent the picture. It is then up to the recipient to
retrieve the attachment.
Which may mean that the recipient must change a setting in Outlook Express.
The setting in Outlook Express 6 is found by Tools>Options. Security tab.
Uncheck the box beside "Do not allow Attachments to be saved or opened that
could potentially be a virus"
Microsoft in their great wisdom checked that box by default. :-)
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
| |
|
| On 10 Apr 2006, CSM1<nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> Microsoft Outlook Express (the Windows XP version (IE6)) has a
> setting that prevents downloads of attachments. If the setting
> is active there is nothing that you (the sender) can do, the
> setting has to be changed at the receivers end.
>
> Also, if you send Plain Text Messages, you can not imbed
> pictures in the email.
>
> If you send HTML mail you can then include the picture in the
> body of the message. However there is a danger of including
> malicious software in HTML mail.
>
> The only thing that you can do is include in the body of your
> message a statement that you have sent the picture. It is then
> up to the recipient to retrieve the attachment.
>
> Which may mean that the recipient must change a setting in
> Outlook Express.
>
> The setting in Outlook Express 6 is found by Tools>Options.
> Security tab. Uncheck the box beside "Do not allow Attachments
> to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus"
>
> Microsoft in their great wisdom checked that box by default. :-)
>
Do you think I could somehow send the file in a way which would allow
the recipient to see it in his browser? He is likely, for better or
for worse, to be using Internet Explorer and that helps to
standardise the viewer. I could in a worsst case post the document
to some webspace and send a link though I don't like that much as
they do not get a permanent copy of the scanned document.
The problem is that I beleieve Internet Explorer does not allow the
user to zoom an image.
I find it nearly impossible to resize/resample images to get them to
the right size. In fact I would have to make an assumption about
screen resolution aalthough I suspect 1024 x 768 is probably safe
enough.
It seems to be quite messy to get an image of a document to someone!
| |
|
| On 10 Apr 2006, Raphael Bustin<foo@bar.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:43:11 +0100, Don W <mail@mail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 1. What is the actual file size of the image in question?
The file size would be something very approximately 75K to 200K.
>
> 2. Try sending the image as an attachment to the email,
> rather than within the body of the email.
I am not very fasmiliar with this. I thought that MIME was itself
a form of attachment which was a standard such that the
recipient's emailer would be able to recognise it.
Eudora lets me select these options.
---------------------------
Encoding method:
MIME [ON]
Binhex
Uuencode
Put attachment in body of message. [OFF]
--------------------------
I have not checked "Put attachment in body of message" whatever
that actually does.
>
> 3. What are the image pixel dimensions? What are the
> resolution tags set to? If the image is contained within
> the body of the email, these will probably matter.
Here is the info:
GIF-LZW.
Original size = 2550 x 3510.
Current size = 2550 x 3510.
Original colors = 2
Disk size = 85,429 bytes.
I don't think I can change the size of the viwed image of a GIF
can I? I guess I could have scanned it as a jpeg and then done
some resizing or resampling.
| |
|
| On 10 Apr 2006, Pete Fraser<pfraser@covad.net> wrote:
> "Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns97A177382964B74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
>
> Are you sure the file is getting to them, and is
> not being stopped by their firewall?
>
Today one recipient said she got something but it was all fuzzy and
hard to read. She was trying to read it in her email program so I
guess the firewall was not blocking it.
| |
| Pete Fraser 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| "Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A1CB03672FC74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> Do you think I could somehow send the file in a way which would allow
> the recipient to see it in his browser? He is likely, for better or
> for worse, to be using Internet Explorer and that helps to
> standardise the viewer. I could in a worsst case post the document
> to some webspace and send a link though I don't like that much as
> they do not get a permanent copy of the scanned document.
>
> The problem is that I beleieve Internet Explorer does not allow the
> user to zoom an image.
>
> I find it nearly impossible to resize/resample images to get them to
> the right size. In fact I would have to make an assumption about
> screen resolution aalthough I suspect 1024 x 768 is probably safe
> enough.
>
> It seems to be quite messy to get an image of a document to someone!
Heve you considered Acrobat.
I often use it for sending documents.
The reader is almost always available.
It has an easy zoom function.
| |
| Ken Weitzel 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
|
Don W wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006, CSM1<nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you think I could somehow send the file in a way which would allow
> the recipient to see it in his browser? He is likely, for better or
> for worse, to be using Internet Explorer and that helps to
> standardise the viewer. I could in a worsst case post the document
> to some webspace and send a link though I don't like that much as
> they do not get a permanent copy of the scanned document.
>
> The problem is that I beleieve Internet Explorer does not allow the
> user to zoom an image.
>
> I find it nearly impossible to resize/resample images to get them to
> the right size. In fact I would have to make an assumption about
> screen resolution aalthough I suspect 1024 x 768 is probably safe
> enough.
>
> It seems to be quite messy to get an image of a document to someone!
Hi Don...
If you're sending them as an attachment another possibility is
that their firewall is quarantining them. Zone Alarm (which is
now being given away by many cable and phone companies) defaults
to email protection being on.
Next time you send one that goes missing, feel free to send it
again to the recipient and cc it to me (if it's not personal).
I'll be happy to let you know if it arrives intact.
Take care.
Ken
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| "Pete Fraser" <pfraser@covad.net> writes:
>
> Heve you considered Acrobat.
> I often use it for sending documents.
> The reader is almost always available.
> It has an easy zoom function.
More accurately, pdf format. It seems like a reasonable idea (almost
all the scanned documents I see these days are .pdf files).
-Miles
--
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| I wrote:
> More accurately, pdf format.
^^^^^^
Though more redundantly... doh!
-Miles
--
97% of everything is grunge
| |
| Clarence Klopfstein 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| >
> Here is the info:
> GIF-LZW.
> Original size = 2550 x 3510.
> Current size = 2550 x 3510.
> Original colors = 2
> Disk size = 85,429 bytes.
>
> I don't think I can change the size of the viwed image of a GIF
> can I? I guess I could have scanned it as a jpeg and then done
> some resizing or resampling.
WOW! That is a huge image to try and email. Most email servers will
have a restriction of 10MB, but even if this is not what you are running
into, I'd never recommend emailing something this large. SMTP servers
are not meant for this type of traffic. A small programming fact, when
you send an email it is ALL text. So an image has to be converted to
text.... during that conversion your image balloons to 113905 bytes!
Your best option would be for you to upload your image to a server
(preferably in a zip file) on your side of things and send a link to the
user. Which would allow them to download the file to their local hard
drive and view it from there.
Hope that helps.
ck
| |
| Dances With Crows 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.periphs.scanners.]
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:55:49 GMT, Clarence Klopfstein staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
> Don W. wrote:
> WOW! That is a huge image to try and email.
84K isn't exactly huge these days. This image must have a lot of large
areas of a single color to compress that well, though.
> I'd never recommend emailing something this large. SMTP servers are
> not meant for this type of traffic.
If this thing were 84M, you'd have a case. At 84K, there's very little
point in worrying about it. Even if the end-user were on dialup, it
wouldn't take long for them to get the image.
> So an image has to be converted to text.... during that conversion
> your image balloons to 113905 bytes!
Yes, encoding something in base64 makes it larger. It's not worth
worrying about here though. (Practically every other protocol is 8-bit
clean, stupid BITNET machines in the old days.... We need a newer,
better implementation of SMTP, but that'd probably cause a Flag Day and
so be unworkable.)
> Your best option would be for you to upload your image to a server
> (preferably in a zip file)
That's pointless; GIF-LZW is already fairly well compressed. Zipping it
would just add another step to the final user's being able to look at
it, and the final user sounded ... not very computer literate, if I'm
reading Don W's messages right.
> and send a link to the user, which would allow them to download the
> file
This may actually work reasonably well. It'd at least get around the
problems with LookOut Excess and any possible problems with the
end-user's too-vicious mail filtering. The problem then becomes "Does
Don W have access to a webserver? Does Don W know how to SCP/FTP files
from his personal machine to his space on that web server?"
Don W, most ISPs give their users 5-10M of space on the ISP's web
servers. You'll have to look at your ISP's FAQ for detailed info on
which server you SCP/FTP things to, and the base URL other users will
use to see the things you've uploaded. For Comcast, this is
http://home.comcast.net/~your_username/ , YISPMV. HTH anyway,
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Screw up your courage! You've screwed up everything else.
| |
| cr88192 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
|
"Clarence Klopfstein" <cklopfstein@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Ly_f.89338$g91.26900@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
minor comment:
for scanned images png may be a better option than either gif or jpeg (which
is both unlikely to compress well for this sort of image, and risk making
the image unusably fuzzy or blurry). png is also pretty much standard
anymore...
> WOW! That is a huge image to try and email. Most email servers will have
> a restriction of 10MB, but even if this is not what you are running into,
> I'd never recommend emailing something this large. SMTP servers are not
> meant for this type of traffic. A small programming fact, when you send
> an email it is ALL text. So an image has to be converted to text....
> during that conversion your image balloons to 113905 bytes!
>
not really anymore. 85kB is really fairly small anymore when it comes to
attachments, and most email servers I have seen recently have somewhat
larger limits (100MB to 1GB in many cases...).
> Your best option would be for you to upload your image to a server
> (preferably in a zip file) on your side of things and send a link to the
> user. Which would allow them to download the file to their local hard
> drive and view it from there.
>
well, at least that is likely to be fairly reliable.
IE also has a limited zoom feature (small, and full size).
in winxp there is an image viewer built into windows that supports zooming
(requiring them to save the image somewhere).
....
> Hope that helps.
>
> ck
| |
| Per Larsen 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| Don W wrote:
<snip>
> Do you think I could somehow send the file in a way which would allow
> the recipient to see it in his browser? He is likely, for better or
> for worse, to be using Internet Explorer and that helps to
> standardise the viewer. I could in a worsst case post the document
> to some webspace and send a link though I don't like that much as
> they do not get a permanent copy of the scanned document.
>
> The problem is that I beleieve Internet Explorer does not allow the
> user to zoom an image.
Even if the user can't zoom the image, he can still right click on it
and select 'Save image As', which will save it in it's original size.
hth
PerL
> I find it nearly impossible to resize/resample images to get them to
> the right size. In fact I would have to make an assumption about
> screen resolution aalthough I suspect 1024 x 768 is probably safe
> enough.
>
> It seems to be quite messy to get an image of a document to someone!
>
| |
|
| "Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A1CB03672FC74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> On 10 Apr 2006, CSM1<nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you think I could somehow send the file in a way which would allow
> the recipient to see it in his browser? He is likely, for better or
> for worse, to be using Internet Explorer and that helps to
> standardise the viewer. I could in a worsst case post the document
> to some webspace and send a link though I don't like that much as
> they do not get a permanent copy of the scanned document.
>
> The problem is that I beleieve Internet Explorer does not allow the
> user to zoom an image.
>
> I find it nearly impossible to resize/resample images to get them to
> the right size. In fact I would have to make an assumption about
> screen resolution aalthough I suspect 1024 x 768 is probably safe
> enough.
>
> It seems to be quite messy to get an image of a document to someone!
>
It is not hard to do at all. You can attach just about any kind of file to
email. Although some types should not be sent without putting in a Zip
wrapper.
It really depends on how computer savvy the recipient is.
As some have pointed out, some servers have a upper limit on the size that
an email and attachment can be. 2 Megabytes is not too large for most
servers.
A 8 1/2 X 11 (letter size) document scanned at around 100-200 dpi should be
saved as a medium to high quality Jpeg. 75 to 90 quality works well for most
documents.
I scanned a 8 x 10.5 inch color magazine cover at 200 dpi and saved with 75
quality made a 635 KB jpg file. Now I guarantee that image would be readable
on anybody's computer screen (It may be so big they would have to scroll).
100 dpi is enough for reading on the computer screen.
Outlook Express should show a paper clip icon when a email has an
attachment.
The recipient should know that something was attached when they see the
paper clip icon.
As a viewer the free irfanview is quite universal.
They can download the viewer and the plugins and install on their computer.
(Windows only)
http://www.irfanview.com
Irfanview allows zoom in and out on any image.
Irfanview can resize and save most image formats.
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> writes:
> A 8 1/2 X 11 (letter size) document scanned at around 100-200 dpi should be
> saved as a medium to high quality Jpeg. 75 to 90 quality works well for most
> documents.
In my experience, jpeg compression is _worse_ than e.g. png when used on
documents, line-drawings, that kind of thing (lots of lines and
high-contrast ediges).
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
| |
|
| > Don W wrote:
>
On 10 Apr 2006, Per Larsen<perl.news@online.no> wrote:[color=darkred]
>
> Even if the user can't zoom the image, he can still right click
> on it and select 'Save image As', which will save it in it's
> original size.
>
You would think it was easy to do that but the people I send to
can't understand what I am saying when I offer to talk them
through it. I just wonder what they are seeing in from of them.
Personally, I think that a capability to use PCs as limited as
this borders on PC-illiteracy. But I have to say that I have
encountered it alltoo often.
However even if the image file were saved to the hard drive by
some highly technical right-clicking by one of my recipients -
then I imagine the IS department has probably got Windows so
tightly screwed down that there is no longer a standalone viewer
of any sort. ("Why would you want to use one of those in the
office?" sort of thinking.)
| |
|
| On 11 Apr 2006, Miles Bader<miles@gnu.org> wrote:
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> writes:
>
> In my experience, jpeg compression is _worse_ than e.g. png when
> used on documents, line-drawings, that kind of thing (lots of
> lines and high-contrast ediges).
There was a discussion about this in these groups about a year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/fg47z
ISTR that jpeg was found not to be quite as hopeless as might have
been predicted for documents from an inherently lossy format.
I like jpegs because you can rotate and edit them. GIFs seem much
harder to work with.
I don't know about PNG. Can they be edited and rotated and zoomed as
flexibly as jpegs?
| |
|
| "Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:87r745kka6.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> writes:
>
> In my experience, jpeg compression is _worse_ than e.g. png when used on
> documents, line-drawings, that kind of thing (lots of lines and
> high-contrast ediges).
>
> -Miles
> --
> Run away! Run away!
Hello, Miles Bader
It is true that Jpeg can cause the problems you describe, if you use a very
high compression.
But for MOST documents, with text and a few graphics, Jpeg in high quality
is quite good, it reduces the files sizes the most, which is what you want
for sending in email.
I would only use TIFF on Line-drawings. Jpeg is very bad for thin lines and
sharp edges. Or maybe gif or png if the line-drawing is in Black and White
only. Gif is only 256 colors.
I am assuming that the documents that the OP wanted to send was normal
documents such as text and maybe some pictures.
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
| |
| Jasen Betts 2006-04-11, 3:55 am |
| On 2006-04-10, Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Is there anything I can do to increase the chances of the
> recipient being able to see the image file I send with my emails?
>
> Sometimes the image of a document which I email from my Eudora
> cannot be seen by the recipient.
>
could be security settings, AIUI there are/were exploits where a speciall
crafter .gif or .jpg could cause execution of arbitrary code.
Bye.
Jasen
| |
| David Robley 2006-04-11, 3:55 am |
| Miles Bader wrote:
> I wrote:
> ^^^^^^
> Though more redundantly... doh!
>
> -Miles
Is that the portable pdf format :-)
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department
Cheers
--
David Robley
Life is like a Car-wash and I'm on a bicycle.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 28th day of Discord in the YOLD 3172.
| |
| Jasen Betts 2006-04-11, 7:56 am |
| On 2006-04-11, Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2006, Miles Bader<miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> There was a discussion about this in these groups about a year ago.
> http://tinyurl.com/fg47z
>
> ISTR that jpeg was found not to be quite as hopeless as might have
> been predicted for documents from an inherently lossy format.
>
> I like jpegs because you can rotate and edit them. GIFs seem much
> harder to work with.
??? I've not noticed any differance, the diference you see may be due to the
way your computer is configured to open gifs vs jpegs.
> I don't know about PNG. Can they be edited and rotated and zoomed as
> flexibly as jpegs?
pretty much.
--
Bye.
Jasen
| |
| Jasen Betts 2006-04-11, 7:56 am |
| On 2006-04-10, Clarence Klopfstein <cklopfstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WOW! That is a huge image to try and email.
84Ki is huge?
there's lots of pixels but only two colours (probably black and white)
> Most email servers will have a restriction of 10MB, but even if this is not what you are running
> into, I'd never recommend emailing something this large. SMTP servers
> are not meant for this type of traffic. A small programming fact, when
> you send an email it is ALL text. So an image has to be converted to
> text.... during that conversion your image balloons to 113905 bytes!
Just think another 80 like that and the mailbox is full.
--
Bye.
Jasen
| |
| Raphael Bustin 2006-04-11, 7:56 am |
| On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:25:23 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com>
wrote:
>"Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
>news:87r745kka6.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
>
>Hello, Miles Bader
>
>
>It is true that Jpeg can cause the problems you describe, if you use a very
>high compression.
>
>But for MOST documents, with text and a few graphics, Jpeg in high quality
>is quite good, it reduces the files sizes the most, which is what you want
>for sending in email.
>
>I would only use TIFF on Line-drawings. Jpeg is very bad for thin lines and
>sharp edges. Or maybe gif or png if the line-drawing is in Black and White
>only. Gif is only 256 colors.
>
>I am assuming that the documents that the OP wanted to send was normal
>documents such as text and maybe some pictures.
GIFs are best for line drawings, logos, and images with "spot
colors" rather than photos. Works well for screen captures of
menus and dialogs, for example.
GIF has some patent issues, even though (I believe) most apps
still support it. (Microsoft IE, Mozilla, XnView, Faststone,
Photoshop are all OK with it.)
PNG is a newer format, but quite good -- it's lossless, and unlike
JPG, supports 48 bit color. Its compression is comparable to
JPG at "high-quality" settings. The format is now well supported.
JPG is intended for photographic content and that's where
it works best.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
| |
| Jim Leonard 2006-04-11, 6:55 pm |
| Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2006-04-10, Clarence Klopfstein <cklopfstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 84Ki is huge?
No, the dimensions are. I know many a program that would freak out
trying to handle a GIF with those dimensions, as a lot of GIF code is
very outdated and was usually only tested to handle typical screen
resolutions.
My suggesion to the OP is to stick with PNG (which was designed to
handle resolutions that large). If the target can't view the image,
recommend a free image viewer, such as Irfanview.
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-04-11, 6:55 pm |
| Don W <mail@mail.invalid> writes:
> ISTR that jpeg was found not to be quite as hopeless as might have
> been predicted for documents from an inherently lossy format.
What I find is that for very "line-oriented" stuff, the only way I can
make the jpeg as small as the PNG is to decrease the jpeg quality a
bunch -- which ends up introducing very obvious artifacts (lots of color
fringes on hard edges), whereas of course the PNG obviously remains
"perfect."
The way I interpret this is that jpeg essentially has problems
representing high-contrast edges, and that large areas of constant color
are something which PNG can compress particularly well.
[It's not a small effect either: using a high-enough quality to avoid
obvious artifacts, jpeg files often seem to be as much as 50% larger
than a PNG file holding the same contents.]
> I like jpegs because you can rotate and edit them. GIFs seem much
> harder to work with.
>
> I don't know about PNG. Can they be edited and rotated and zoomed as
> flexibly as jpegs?
Pretty much all the image software I know of treats PNG and jpegs
identically (and probably doesn't even distinguish except when reading
or writing the file). I don't know about GIF, as I don't use that
format; I suppose you can think of PNG as being the modern replacement
for GIF though.
-Miles
--
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."
| |
|
| On 11 Apr 2006, Jim Leonard<MobyGamer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jasen Betts wrote:
>
> No, the dimensions are. I know many a program that would freak
> out trying to handle a GIF with those dimensions, as a lot of
> GIF code is very outdated and was usually only tested to handle
> typical screen resolutions.
I am the OP. Maybe I screwed up somewhere when scanning the
image.
I just used the regular settings on my Epson Twain (v5.71)
software. ISTR the output resoultion was 200 or something like
that.
>
> My suggesion to the OP is to stick with PNG (which was designed
> to handle resolutions that large). If the target can't view the
> image, recommend a free image viewer, such as Irfanview.
>
Isn't PNG a rarer format than GIF. I worry that the average basic
viewer (such as the one in XP or in an email program) may not be
able to see PNG files. Is this worry essentially unfounded?
| |
|
| On 11 Apr 2006, Raphael Bustin<foo@bar.com> wrote:
> GIFs are best for line drawings, logos, and images with "spot
> colors" rather than photos. Works well for screen captures of
> menus and dialogs, for example.
>
> GIF has some patent issues, even though (I believe) most apps
> still support it. (Microsoft IE, Mozilla, XnView, Faststone,
> Photoshop are all OK with it.)
>
> PNG is a newer format, but quite good -- it's lossless, and unlike
> JPG, supports 48 bit color. Its compression is comparable to
> JPG at "high-quality" settings. The format is now well supported.
>
> JPG is intended for photographic content and that's where
> it works best.
Can the Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer see PNG images?
I tried to check this but my Fax And Pic Viewer doesn't launch. I
used this to launch it:
%windir%\System32\rundll32.exe %SystemRoot%\system32
\shimgvw.dll,ImageView_Fullscreen
But ISTR that XP SP2 can mess up the Fax And Picture Viewer. I cab't
really say.
| |
|
| On 11 Apr 2006, Jasen Betts<jasen@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
> ??? I've not noticed any differance, the diference you see may
> be due to the way your computer is configured to open gifs vs
> jpegs.
If a GIF or PMG is rotated is it lossless?
I can find only lossless transformation in my picture viewers for
JPGs but not for any other format.
Except in Irfanview. I don't know if Irfanviews's GIF rotatation
is lossess or not. Do you?
>
> pretty much.
| |
| Raphael Bustin 2006-04-11, 9:55 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:01:42 +0100, Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2006, Jasen Betts<jasen@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>If a GIF or PMG is rotated is it lossless?
PNG is a lossless format, so no problem there.
There are programs that can do lossless rotations (90-degree
increments) of JPGs.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
| |
| cr88192 2006-04-11, 9:55 pm |
|
"Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A3F168C9AA74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> On 11 Apr 2006, Raphael Bustin<foo@bar.com> wrote:
>
>
> Can the Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer see PNG images?
>
yes, generally.
> I tried to check this but my Fax And Pic Viewer doesn't launch. I
> used this to launch it:
>
> %windir%\System32\rundll32.exe %SystemRoot%\system32
> \shimgvw.dll,ImageView_Fullscreen
>
> But ISTR that XP SP2 can mess up the Fax And Picture Viewer. I cab't
> really say.
>
on win-xp on my computer, at least, it can.
likewise, it also displays thumbnails fine (like gif and jpg, unlike most
other "unsupported" formats).
likewise, on xp ms paint can open pngs as well.
....
so, yeah, no real problems there...
| |
| cr88192 2006-04-11, 9:55 pm |
|
"Don W" <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97A3D641B1AE74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> On 11 Apr 2006, Jim Leonard<MobyGamer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am the OP. Maybe I screwed up somewhere when scanning the
> image.
>
no, that seems about right.
> I just used the regular settings on my Epson Twain (v5.71)
> software. ISTR the output resoultion was 200 or something like
> that.
>
that is for dpi.
your image is about 12.75 x 17.55 inches according to this (probably raw
scanner output, uncropped).
typical apps often expect small gifs, as usually gifs are used for smaller
images (banner adds and logos on sites, ...). not huge ones (photos or
scanned images). screen dumps may or may be saved as gifs (this is a toss
up, some use gif, some jpeg, some png, and some plain bitmaps or targa
images...).
now, if you had a scanned document at 200 pixels, well now, you might be
lucky if you can actually read it...
>
>
> Isn't PNG a rarer format than GIF. I worry that the average basic
> viewer (such as the one in XP or in an email program) may not be
> able to see PNG files. Is this worry essentially unfounded?
yeah, anymore partly because png doesn't do animations, and a lot of uses
for gif (banner adds, ...) involve animations. likewise, a lot of the user
community is still using gifs as that is what they used before (and png came
into dominance with a notably small amount of hype...).
in any case, they should be seen fine, as they are pretty well supported by
windows.
| |
| Jasen Betts 2006-04-12, 7:55 am |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.compression.]
On 2006-04-12, Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2006, Jasen Betts<jasen@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> If a GIF or PMG is rotated is it lossless?
if it's rotated a multiple of 90 degrees.
> Except in Irfanview. I don't know if Irfanviews's GIF rotatation
> is lossess or not. Do you?
it'd be extra work to make it lossy...
Bye.
Jasen
| |
| Clarence Klopfstein 2006-04-12, 9:55 pm |
| Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2006-04-10, Clarence Klopfstein <cklopfstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 84Ki is huge?
Ooops.. I saw the dimensions... and just assumed the 84,429 was
kilobytes :-)
| |
| Jim Leonard 2006-04-12, 9:55 pm |
| Don W wrote:
>
> I am the OP. Maybe I screwed up somewhere when scanning the
> image.
No, you didn't, you just chose the wrong file format to try to store
the image in. GIFs are not typically used to store images that large,
so any legacy GIF code hiding somewhere will probably freak out trying
to read them.
PNG *was* designed from the ground up to handle that resolution (and
larger) and is fairly well supported by most modern programs, so I'd
recommend that.
> Isn't PNG a rarer format than GIF. I worry that the average basic
> viewer (such as the one in XP or in an email program) may not be
> able to see PNG files. Is this worry essentially unfounded?
I can't answer that because I don't know what software your target
audience is using. If it's really an issue, you can email them a
decent freeware graphics viewer program such as Irfanview.
| |
| Rusty Shakleford 2006-04-15, 7:55 am |
| Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in news:Xns97A3F168C9AA74C1H4@
127.0.0.1:
> Can the Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer see PNG images?
>
Oddly, not if it is saved as a PNG on Linux. It shows up a
scrambled mess in Windows. You have to re-save as PNG Tif or Jpg
after opening in photoshop on Windows.
It shows fine if saved as a PNG in Photoshop on Windows, or Gimp
on windows. It still shows up Ok on Linux too.
???
| |
|
| "Rusty Shakleford" <dale@gribble.com> wrote in message
news:e1qlle$fna$1@news.netins.net...
> Don W <mail@mail.invalid> wrote in news:Xns97A3F168C9AA74C1H4@
> 127.0.0.1:
>
>
>
> Oddly, not if it is saved as a PNG on Linux. It shows up a
> scrambled mess in Windows. You have to re-save as PNG Tif or Jpg
> after opening in photoshop on Windows.
>
> It shows fine if saved as a PNG in Photoshop on Windows, or Gimp
> on windows. It still shows up Ok on Linux too.
>
> ???
I don't know if it was ever mentioned, but one way to ensure that a person
receives an image is to post the image on a web site that accepts images and
then post the link to the image in the body of the email.
One such site is:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos
You would have to register with them to post a image.
This is maybe the most sure way to get an image to someone, for them to go
to a web site and download the image.
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
| |
| Jasen Betts 2006-04-16, 3:55 am |
| >> Can the Microsoft Fax And Picture Viewer see PNG images?
>
> Oddly, not if it is saved as a PNG on Linux. It shows up a
> scrambled mess in Windows. You have to re-save as PNG Tif or Jpg
> after opening in photoshop on Windows.
>
> It shows fine if saved as a PNG in Photoshop on Windows, or Gimp
> on windows. It still shows up Ok on Linux too.
>
> ???
do the images get larger when saved on windows?
does IE have problems (other than alpha) dealing with linux pngs
what version of libpng are you using on linux?
Bye.
Jasen
|
|
|
|
|