Mm. You're doing something wrong..if you edit them (as in filtering) the only possible outcome is that they'll be smaller (due to the filtering removing detail). So unless you're adding grain or some other effect..your file should shrink in size..not enlarge.
As for editing i'd reccomend Photoshop CS3-4.
As for editing i'd reccomend Photoshop CS3-4.
Humm... from what I know the initial image should never increase in size if the original and the newly saved image are the same file type and you haven't added any artifacts and all you have done is simplified the image such as removing artifacts and adjusting the color depth.
I think it has to do with the program you using to edit the image with, the compression is different. Usually for programs such as CS2 which is what I use, the save has no options for compression quality and defaults to the normal, unless you are using the save option in which you can adjust the compression of quality to size ratio.
I think it has to do with the program you using to edit the image with, the compression is different. Usually for programs such as CS2 which is what I use, the save has no options for compression quality and defaults to the normal, unless you are using the save option in which you can adjust the compression of quality to size ratio.
I will never use png compression with PS.
it's slow and less compressed compairing other tools.
I guess Adobe hates png format :P
note: PNG file size depends on compression level & filters. you can check how they work using some tools (such as fast stone image viewer)
it's slow and less compressed compairing other tools.
I guess Adobe hates png format :P
note: PNG file size depends on compression level & filters. you can check how they work using some tools (such as fast stone image viewer)
Photoshop CS4 has good PNG compression, but PNGOUT has the ability to always beat out everything in my experience.midzki said:
I will never use png compression with PS.
it's slow and less compressed compairing other tools.
I guess Adobe hates png format :P
For example, on post #61796 which you uploaded:
Original: 64.5MB (67,611,544 bytes)
Photoshop CS4: 63.1MB (66,107,762 bytes).
GIMP (Compression 9): 63.2MB (66,269,319 bytes)
Infranview (Compression 9) 63.2MB (66,269,327 bytes)
FastStone (Max, Paeth) 63.9MB (66,947,072 bytes)
ACDSee (no metadata or database) 65MB (68,106,365 bytes)
PNGOUT w/ fast settings (Auto, Huffman only, 1 pass): 60.8MB (63,706,206 bytes)
PNGOUT w/ insanely slow settings (Auto, No pass limit): 60.5MB (63,402,439 bytes)
Winner: PNGOUT
Second Place: Photoshop CS4
Third Place (tie): Infranview, GIMP
Fourth Place: FastStone
Last Place: ACDsee
The moral to the story? Depending on how well the original png was compressed and how well the app you use compresses the png, the filesize will either shrink or grow.
Photoshop takes about 6x longer for me than other programs. No few percent more compression is worth wasting a minute and a half of my time to save one image. It's completely broken.
I might mix up info about PS's PNG.
It's slow (PS CS1) in my experience, or less compressed (PS5) in other information.
(but I won't use it neither. I always set png compression level under 8.)
It's slow (PS CS1) in my experience, or less compressed (PS5) in other information.
(but I won't use it neither. I always set png compression level under 8.)
Omg... I know this feeling. With my slower computer, saving large PNG file type takes me like 2 or 3 minutes.midzki said:
I will never use png compression with PS.
it's slow and less compressed compairing other tools.
I guess Adobe hates png format :P
note: PNG file size depends on compression level & filters. you can check how they work using some tools (such as fast stone image viewer)
My other favorite program to use is Corel 10, which is very simple and easy to use but I don't know how Corel does their compression.
I haven't noticed this on my older AMD X2 machine. On that huge image, all of the ones I listed above were taking 4-5 minutes in saving with max compression. The only fast one was PNGOUT with fast settings.petopeto said:
Photoshop takes about 6x longer for me than other programs. No few percent more compression is worth wasting a minute and a half of my time to save one image. It's completely broken.
Maybe CS4 finally fixed it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Photoshop was something like 20% slower. *shrug* Granted if you are going for less intense compression, the others will definitely beat out CS4, since CS4 only does max compression.
Try replacing (backup first) the PNG.8bi with the one from CS4 and see if it works any better. (the Plug-ins\File Formats folder) http://www.mediafire.com/?rv4dj2wzymc
What app and settings do you use for saving PNG images petopeto? If there is something different or specific settings which you find better, I'm open for suggestions.
Irfanview.
pool's closed. =3=
pool's closed. =3=
Photoshop, 5000x5000: 60 seconds (!), 9921949 bytes.
pnmtopng (rudimentary Unix commandline tool--does nothing fancy, just passes to libpng): 10 seconds, 10558834 bytes.
60 second saves are useless; multiply it by a set and it can easily waste over an hour just compressing. For an under 10% difference in size, it's a joke. (Especially since while you're saving in Photoshop it can't do anything else, and it refuses to open a second instance ... even though I'm on a quad-core, 8gb system. Adobe *cough* rocks.)
These weren't run on the same system--pnmtopng on a Q6600, Photoshop on a Q9300, which is similar and slightly faster.
pnmtopng (rudimentary Unix commandline tool--does nothing fancy, just passes to libpng): 10 seconds, 10558834 bytes.
60 second saves are useless; multiply it by a set and it can easily waste over an hour just compressing. For an under 10% difference in size, it's a joke. (Especially since while you're saving in Photoshop it can't do anything else, and it refuses to open a second instance ... even though I'm on a quad-core, 8gb system. Adobe *cough* rocks.)
These weren't run on the same system--pnmtopng on a Q6600, Photoshop on a Q9300, which is similar and slightly faster.
Interesting. Is there a Win32 binary available of pnmtopng? If so, is performance similar to the *nix version?petopeto said:
Photoshop, 5000x5000: 60 seconds (!), 9921949 bytes.
pnmtopng (rudimentary Unix commandline tool--does nothing fancy, just passes to libpng): 10 seconds, 10558834 bytes.
On your Q9300 system, how long does it take to save the image with PNGOUT (Huffman only, 1 pass)???
It just decodes PNM files (which nobody uses) and spits it to libpng. I don't have PNGOUT, but XnView does the same conversion (from BMP) in about 9 seconds, 10558855 bytes. (That's with the default compression level of 6; it's similarly slow if I turn it up to 9.)
I have 2 more questions regarding compression. Do you lose quality if you compress images compared to say lossless audio for example? iI not, then is itjust a slight change, for example; loading the actual image or is it something else i.e color being altered?
Lossless is lossless. If a format is truly lossless, it will be identical in all aspects to the original (no quality is lost) no matter what the format is.
Are you having an issue with images not looking identical?
Images will look slightly different in ICC color managed applications when compared to ones which are not color managed. They will look extremely different in applications with/without managed color if you have a color profile other then sRGB attached. Keep in mind this is nothing unique to lossless though as lossy images behave the same way.
Using Firefox 3 with color management enabled, all images should look identical to what you see in Photoshop. I *think* Safari also has color management support for those who use a Mac, but I have not confirmed this myself.
Are you having an issue with images not looking identical?
Images will look slightly different in ICC color managed applications when compared to ones which are not color managed. They will look extremely different in applications with/without managed color if you have a color profile other then sRGB attached. Keep in mind this is nothing unique to lossless though as lossy images behave the same way.
Using Firefox 3 with color management enabled, all images should look identical to what you see in Photoshop. I *think* Safari also has color management support for those who use a Mac, but I have not confirmed this myself.
Not but... (tell me if did this wrong!) I edited the pic in Paint.Net and got X size (pretty large, actually larger in size than the original since the size was reduced way below 50%) then I compressed it (?) with IrfanView to PNG (source was PNG as well) with compression lvl 6. If this works the same as compressing FLAC, then I'm a good girl?
Did I make the right choice?
Did I make the right choice?
Yes, you are doing everything correctly.
Paint.NET just compresses PNG images very poorly.
You may consider just doing all your editing in GIMP instead of Paint.NET. This would save yourself the extra step of saving the PNG a second time. GIMP and Infranview seem to share the same PNG compression code.
Paint.NET just compresses PNG images very poorly.
You may consider just doing all your editing in GIMP instead of Paint.NET. This would save yourself the extra step of saving the PNG a second time. GIMP and Infranview seem to share the same PNG compression code.
In all seriousness, you're better off with Photoshop CS3 than GIMP in Windows if you can get a copy...
Speaking of Photoshop, don't be surprised if one of the upcoming CS4 patches adds more PNG compression options which will allow you to choose a speed/compression trade off like GIMP/Infranview.
I'm more interested in them making CS4 not broken.
What do you mean "not broken"?petopeto said:
I'm more interested in them making CS4 not broken.
CS4 is the buggiest version of Photoshop I've ever used. None other even comes close.
The 11.0.1 patch should fix major things with the biggest being the brush lag issue.petopeto said:
I'm more interested in them making CS4 not broken.
Petopeto, please tell me if there is anything else in particular you would like me to file a bug against or bring to the attention of Adobe's engineers.
If you could post or PM me a list of issues with reproduction steps and expected results, that would be great. I will make sure to pass it on. This is the only way things will ever get fixed.
I'm running XP64, which means they get to use the excuse that XP64 doesn't support OpenGL (which is a bald lie; it does). They just don't want to bother testing in it. It's absurd, since XP64 is the only 64-bit Windows that isn't Vista, and Vista isn't a choice.
I've got a copy of CS4 but i've yet to install and work with it yet. I might just do that Saturday.
Yeah this is one thing that unfortunately won't change. Windows XP x64 is not a supported platform in their mind. They want people to use Vista x64 or Win7 x64 instead which they have said are a huge improvement since they virtualize the GPU or some such and makes coding much easier/cleaner.petopeto said:
I'm running XP64, which means they get to use the excuse that XP64 doesn't support OpenGL (which is a bald lie; it does). They just don't want to bother testing in it. It's absurd, since XP64 is the only 64-bit Windows that isn't Vista, and Vista isn't a choice.
CS4 will use OpenGL in XP x64 if you use the AllowOldGPUs registry edit: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4056
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Photoshop\11.0]
"AllowOldGPUS"=dword:00000001
In you are in no rush, you may want to wait until the 11.0.1 patch is out. That may save you a bit of grief which you could run into. If you are brave, go for it, just don't make final judgments until the first patch is out.aoie_emesai said:
I've got a copy of CS4 but i've yet to install and work with it yet. I might just do that Saturday.
What angers me--well, half of it--is that they blame XP64:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404898
"OpenGL is not supported on Windows XP 64 because XP 64-bit drivers aren't written to support this technology."
... which quietly ignores the fact that OpenGL works just fine in 32-bit.
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404898
"OpenGL is not supported on Windows XP 64 because XP 64-bit drivers aren't written to support this technology."
... which quietly ignores the fact that OpenGL works just fine in 32-bit.
They blame XP x64 because it is at fault, the same goes for XP x86.
As you probably realize, that fault has nothing directly to do with OpenGL, but rather how the operating system handles the GPU. Could they make it work well, sure. Does somewhat work already, yes. They just view it as dead-end going forward.
You should read that instead as:
"OpenGL is not supported on Windows XP 64 because XP 64-bit drivers aren't written to support the GPU virtualization technology we wish to use. Starting with Vista, the GPU is virtualized which greatly improves window management, and allow multiple GPU operations play nice together. This is the future for what we plan to do with OpenGL and GPU acceleration. XP is now considered legacy and support will be slowly phased out starting first with XP x64. Please upgrade."
As you probably realize, that fault has nothing directly to do with OpenGL, but rather how the operating system handles the GPU. Could they make it work well, sure. Does somewhat work already, yes. They just view it as dead-end going forward.
You should read that instead as:
"OpenGL is not supported on Windows XP 64 because XP 64-bit drivers aren't written to support the GPU virtualization technology we wish to use. Starting with Vista, the GPU is virtualized which greatly improves window management, and allow multiple GPU operations play nice together. This is the future for what we plan to do with OpenGL and GPU acceleration. XP is now considered legacy and support will be slowly phased out starting first with XP x64. Please upgrade."
Except that they *do* support XP32, so they're already supporting that type of environment.
Feito
Size question
Do I have the wrong tool/app for editing pics perhaps? : /