Photoshop quality problems...

Posted by: Moffesto

Photoshop quality problems... - 06/23/02 04:04 PM

I use adobe photoshop 6 and when i make a nice smooth looking image with it and save it as a BMP the quality goes from good to "blow it out your ass". Anyone know how to make the BMP form look just as good or is there any other type i can save it as to get the perfect picture....
Posted by: olosoft

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/23/02 05:10 PM

uhh, if you want bmp, make sure youre using 24bit
you can also try tif, or jpeg at 12 quality, those are the best formats for quality, jpeg will be smallest file size.
Posted by: Moffesto

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/23/02 05:20 PM

yes, i was using 24bit. I havent tried tif or jpeg... jpeg is smaller but the quality isnt as good as bmp as far is can tell.
Posted by: Soap

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 01:45 AM

As far a compression goes, I beleive the best format is jpeg2000. Jpeg 2000 is the new Jpeg. The "OLD" jpeg had quality loss. This one does not (very nice piccies ).

BMP is very FAT so I can't understanfd why your pic looks crap. BMP is also, I beleive, a RAW format (no compression)...so it should be the **best**.

What are u opposing it too moffesto? THe PSP format? I mean what do u save it under so it looks all singing dancing and everything
Posted by: Cold Sunn

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 02:45 AM

The bmp's i have saved looked fine for me..always. I mean i haven't done much that got saved as bmp, just some simple stuff in skins. Also if don't use bmp, use File>Save for web...> then choose whatever one works best. I am sure you know that though. Try doing that and saving it as jpeg and have the quality at 100. I might not have helped at all. But they always work for me. Doing a Save As.. never looked good though.
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 04:59 AM

you could always make a screen shot of the pic, and paste it into paint and crop it and save it to 24-bit bitmap. That would be a good workaround to whatever is screwing up your image.

And they're right - 24-bit bitmaps IS a raw format and provides perfect quality for as long as the standard 24-bit RGB (3 bytes per pixel) format is used.
Posted by: Moffesto

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 09:15 AM

haha SR, i was thinking of actually taking the screenshot and trying it. k cold sunn, i will try it next time i mess with photoshop [Alien]
Posted by: Curse

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 11:47 AM

I made this really gay looking image of the Pope that says NAMBLA, well I tried to save and Photoshop couldn't due to 'program error', so I took a screen shot and saved it in Paint...
Posted by: Moffesto

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 11:53 AM

did it still look as good as it did in photoshop?
Posted by: Le4rner

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 12:13 PM

tiff is one overlookde pic format. They are big files but little to no compression. Also PNG pics usally lose very little. There is a bit more you can do with PNG also. Support is still a bit limited though.
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Moffesto:
did it still look as good as it did in photoshop?
of course it did. What did I just say? 24-bit bitmap is RAW. Each pixel on your screen takes 3 bytes, well, each pixel is in the bitmap represented as 3 bytes. It's like they dumped the screen data to a file. RAW, can you say RAW? RAW = original. original = perfect quality. original = same. Now chant to yourself, bitmap is RAW... bitmap is RAW...

Your problem is that photoshop is screwing up your image for some reason. Trust me, I know these things, I've researched the 24-bit bitmap file format, and had developed a pathetic compression scheme for it.

heh, probably none of you realize that the bitmap file format actually supports various types of compression - but it's almost never used.
Posted by: Le4rner

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 02:02 PM

Realy? What compression is out there for bmp? I have never heard of that before.
Posted by: xero

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 02:44 PM

whats this on jpeg2000? is the file extention still jpg or jpeg, and what programs allow jpg encoding??
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 06:40 PM

you can have compressed .bmp files with a type of RLE compression. Do a search on the internet for RLE compression and you'll find bunches of information about it and find that it is actually a pretty inferior compression method.
Posted by: Curse

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/24/02 09:11 PM

it would have looked better if I didn't have it magnified, and it showed this little icon in the corner...
Posted by: Soap

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/25/02 03:33 AM

yeah SR is right about the BMP shit (what I wasn't sure about mentionning above ).thx. 3 bytes per pixel, multiply that by the pizels in yer pic, And you've got 1 fat pic...

K anyways, well Jpeg2000 Is something i read about recently. It has apparently kick-ass compression cuz You don't see data loss (u did with jpeg). I asked myself the same questions, what encodes it, what can read it, is the extension different. Well I'l try and read up some more about this and keep u guys posted.

As a conclusion, I would like to re-state what SR said in case there is misundertanding over this:

BMP is RAW, so quality is as its best. a pic CANNOT be any better quality, and if it's worst, it's coming from the prog, not the format.
Posted by: quicksilver

Re: Photoshop quality problems... - 06/25/02 08:37 AM

Well I know there are jpeg200 plug-ins for both photoshop and ImagXpress. They can be found here, about midway down the page

http://jpeg2000.jpg.com/

There is alot of other shit there too for adding stuff into programs you are making, i beleive you have to pay for it all though.

There are a handfull of companies that have developed jpeg2000 codecs.

jpeg2000 is a wavelet compression scheme. To elliminate the risk of giving completely incorrect information I will let people much smarter than myself explain it:

http://www.amara.com/IEEEwave/IEEEwavelet.html