JPG vs PNG Test became JPG Resizing Test - a temporary topic

[Andrea B.]

EDITOR'S NOTE: I am trying to find the best way to resize a photo for posting here on UVP. It appears that the forum software itself resizes large JPGs rather well. But if I resize a photo myself, there appears to be some softening when posted. I thought it might be time to check what I know about resizing and see what works best here.

I had entitled the topic JPG vs PNG because I also wanted to see what happened with PNGs. They behave just like JPGs when posted here. But the PNG filesize is so big that it took a long time to load. So I removed the PNG below and did not further explore anything with PNGs. Thus the topic is all about my repeated attempts to resize those Pink Flowers and preserve the detail.

---

 

 

These This JPG and PNG are is a monster size file, but I just want to test something for a minute.

(In case anyone happens to notice, yes the files are misnamed. These are not hydrangeas.)

This JPG takes forever to load.

 

 

JPG

Forum software has resized the photo for page display.

Clicks up to full size of approx. 6000 px width.

[Andrea B.]

PNG

This took a ridiculously long time to upload.

Forum software has resized the photo for page display.

Clicks up to full size of approx. 6000 px width.

 

Editor's Note: Removed. File size too big.

Makes page slow loading.

And PNG vs JPG unimportant as both looked exactly the same.

[Andrea B.]

JPG resized in PSE with no resharpen.

[Andrea B.]

PNG resized in PSE with no resharpen.

 

Editor's Note: Removed. File size too big.

[Andrea B.]

JPG in Post #1 versus JPG in Post #3.

 

The forum software's resize to 1021 px width is clearly superior to my PSE resize to 1021 px width.

Interesting.

 

Now I will try re-sharpening my resize in PSE.

[Andrea B.]

Photo resized in PSE to 1021 px width using Bicubic Sharper.

Highpass overlay sharpening of 1 px width added.

 

[Andrea B.]

Photo resized in Photo Ninja to 25% or original size. (1021 width not available there.)

Detail Slider = 10 set after resize.

 

[Andrea B.]

Detail crops from Post #1, Post #6 and Post #7 were made via screen shots at full browser expansion.

 

Post #1: Forum software resize

This is the best of the 3 crops.

 

Post #6: PSE Bicubic Sharper resize + Highpass Overlay

This is the worst of the 3 crops.

 

Post #7: Photo Ninja resize + Detail Slider 10

This is much better than my PSE effort but not quite as good as the forum resize.

[Andrea B.]

Observations:

 

After resizing a photo, re-sharpening of some type is needed before posting.

(....and we knew that already...)

 

PNG versus JPG has nothing to do with anything in terms of detail or sharpness.

If not resized, PNGs are way too big and take to long to load and display.

 

What is the forum software doing when it resizes a really big file (i.e., 6000 pixels wide or more)?

The forum software resizes a big file quite nicely.

But we have noticed that some other forum software resizes are not so good.

Their method must work better on a big file than a smaller one?

Oversampling works better when more px to choose from?

 

Try to find out what resizing algo is being used.

It appears to use some detail enhancement after the resize rather than a standard sharpening technique?

[Andrea B.]

Resize in PSE versus resize in NX2.

No additional sharpening/detail added after the resize.

 

NX2 resize to 1021 px width.

 

PSE resize to 1021 px width. Bicubic sharper.

 

PSE, NX2

The NX2 might be a bit better. But must try all PSE resizing algorithms.

[Andrea B.]

Take the better resize from NX2 and sharpen it.

 

NX2 resize to 1021 px width with added Highpass Overlay of 2 px width.

 

NX2 resize to 1021 px width with USM 10% 50% 0% midtone boost.

 

NX2 resize to 1021 px width with Photo Ninja Detail Slider set to 10.

[Andrea B.]

Excerpts from preceding resizes compared to forum resize in Post #1.

 

 

Post #11: NX2 resize to 1021 px width with no additional sharpening.

 

Post #12: NX2 resize to 1021 px width with added Highpass Overlay of 2 px width.

 

Post #12: NX2 resize to 1021 px width with USM 10% 50% 0% midtone boost.

 

Post #12 :NX2 resize to 1021 px width with Photo Ninja Detail Slider set to 10.

 

Post #1: Forum software resize.

GEEZ. I cannot get mine to look this good.

[Andrea B.]

try detail= 20 which is massive.

 

 

left forum right detail 20

Getting nowhere fast.

[Andrea B.]

NX2: Resize to 1021 px width

Photo Ninja: Detail Slider = 10

Photo Ninja: Sharpening 85/.60

 

A massive amount of resharpening has caused some crunchiness.

But I had to try it.

 

 

I GIVE UP. Forum Software (left) has better resizing mojo than I have.

[Andy Perrin]

Andrea, did you try just using Nearest Neighbor interpolation in Photoshop?

 

Re PNG vs JPG: PNG will always have larger file sizes on natural scene images with ordinary photos. The only time it outdoes JPG on file size is when you have an image with large areas of a single color, like with animation/cartoons, graphs and charts, and sometimes with thermal images.

[Andrea B.]

Forum software resizes better than NX2.

NX2 resizes better than PSE bicubic sharper.

As Andy has pointed out bicubic sharper may not be the best choice. I'll try others later.

 

What about Photo Ninja resize versus NX2 resize?

Try 1:8 resizes in both.

 

NX2 resize to 791 px width. No additional edits.

 

Photo Ninja resize to 791 px width. No additional edits.

 

I don't see any difference.

[Andy Perrin]

Annnndreaaaaa...did you see my comment? You have to use a lower order of interpolation (like nearest neighbor or bilinear) to get sharper images. Cubic smooths things.

[dabateman]

Ok so I shouldn't take the straight out of camera Jpeg, drop it to 800x600 in Infran viewer, save as Jpeg with slider at 70%?

That is what I have been doing.

Interesting that very few have complained about my image sharpness. Or have I just been anti-selling the Olympus cameras?

The effect om the DF images was clear, huge hit in posted sharpness.

 

Andrea, do you have a new best way of uploading an image from the original image upload recipes?

[Andrea B.]

andy, will get there! trying a few different things.

[Andrea B.]

Compare how the forum software resizes a JPG saved at full quality and 50% quality.

The photo was NOT resized, simply resaved at the two qualities.

 

Q100 vs Q50

 

I have repeatedly demonstrated this before in various forums. The quality setting reduces file size but seems to play a very minor role in what you see on screen. Can you tell which photo was saved at the lower quality? Don't hover your cursor over the photos before you guess!

 

 

 

[Andrea B.]

No resharpening or redetailing on these. I don't have time to do all of them. Will try for best one.

 

PSE Nearest Neighbor.

we already know this one will be goofy for flowers

 

PSE Bilinear

been so long I didn't remember what this did. not sure I ever used it?

 

PSE Bicubic

 

PSE Bicubic Smooth

 

PSE Bicubic Sharp

 

In these excerpts I am NOT seeing the detail provided by the forum resized photos.

bilinear, bicubic smooth

bicubic, bicubic sharp

[Andrea B.]

Try a resharpen on the bicubic (plain).

6060 in pn. no detail.

 

 

0 sharp. detail 15.

 

forum resize (left) is still winning.

[dabateman]

Wow the noise in the leaf using nearest neighor is just horrible compared to bicubic sharp.

Sohould use NN on a 135 sensor vs BS on 43rds image to start a war over on Dpreview :p

[Andrea B.]

la! They are all either 18 or 68 over there and so easily upset.

[Andrea B.]

At this point I have managed to show that the best looking photo above was an unresized JPG saved at 50-100% quality (ideally 50% to reduce file size) and resized by the forum software.

 

Really? For years I've told people that it is best to perform the resize yourself to ensure the best quality resize. Yet here I am after scads of resizes -- unable to attain the best quality resize by doing it myself. Another myth exploded? My head might explode if I have to resize those pink flowers one.more.time.

 

I feel like a dumb bunny for sure.