By definition of the word it would mean reverse the process of compression.
The purpose of a compressed image is not only to have a smaller image for storage but also less information contained in that image which means less information to process.
If RAW is the same as a native CMOS image. By definition you are working with more information and a larger file, which would be more information to process.
By definition of the word it would mean reverse the process of compression.
The purpose of a compressed image is not only to have a smaller image for storage but also less information contained in that image which means less information to process.
If RAW is the same as a native CMOS image. By definition you are working with more information and a larger file, which would be more information to process.
There are two kinds of compression: lossy and lossless. Think of it like packing a suitcase.
Lossless compression would mean that you squish all your clothes that are laid out on your bed into the suitcase. They're all squished, but they're all still there. If you open the suitcase at your destination, you pull out all the exact same clothes that were on your bed. You have lost nothing. It's lossless.
Lossy compression would mean that, in order to fit stuff into your suitcase, you have to leave some stuff behind. I mean, if you're almost bald, do you need hairspray? :-) When you unpack at your destination, you do *NOT* have everything that you planned on having--you *LOST* some stuff. This is why it's considered LOSSY compression--some things got thrown out.
Now, hopefully, the stuff that gets thrown out is the LEAST NECESSARY stuff, but it's still real stuff. Will you notice it missing? Probably not. But it is not, in fact, there anymore, and THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT BACK. It's Lossy.
PSD and TIFF and raw use lossless compression. It doesn't compress as well, but at least you have everything you started out with.
JPEG (other than, obviously, Lossless JPEG) is lossy. Stuff gets thrown out and there's no way to get it back. Does it matter? It might, it might not. Depends on your use of the image and how critical you and your customer are.
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Ah, now that Aperture is on the scene, I guess my old truism needs refinement.
In Photoshop or any other bitmap editor, don't use JPEGs as your master images.
In Aperture, with its nondestructive editing, changes to your image are saved in a database until you explicitly export the file. So you actually could use JPEGs as masters in Aperture. There'd be no harm that I can think of off the top of my head.
Yes the concepts of lossy and lossless compression exist in the film/video world also. TIFF is used in motion picture data world as an uncompressed image container. So yes I am familiar with it.
And yes I do know JPEG is a very lossy codec. That is why I am asking about processing power and editing JPEG images vs RAW images.
So now I see you are talking about converting JPEG into a higher format for manipulating. Now that makes sense to me and I can understand. The same thing is done in the video world. DV is converted to HD for manipulation because of the increased resolution and color space.
If a JPEG is converted into a TIFF, I would not call that an uncompressed JPEG, it is a low resolution TIFF.
If a JPEG is converted into a TIFF, I would not call that an uncompressed JPEG, it is a low resolution TIFF.
Converting it to TIFF would uncompress the JPEG. The resulting TIFF file would be a lower-quality TIFF file, but the resolution (pixel count) would stay the same.
Now, I'm interested in how well lossless JPEG compresses. is it, like with other lossless formats 1:2, so the lossless JPEG is half the size of the original full-quality version ? Or does it compress better/worse.
As the image is basically a set of color definitions, I would guess the compression would vary according to the color range, and would compress more if there are a lot of pixels with the exact same color, or pixels with the same intensity for either red, green or blue.
Performance is an issue for all compression, so there must be a balancing act between compression rate and performance of decompression (as compression is less of an issue).
That confuses the nomenclature because calling it an uncompressed JPEG would assume the information that was lost in compression is now restored. Which it is not. You've only moved the compressed image to a container that has more resolution and color space.
JPEG 2000 is a lossless compression codec that uses wavelet files is stipulated to be used in future 4K digital cinema projection.
There are two kinds of compression: lossy and lossless. Think of it like packing a suitcase.
Lossless compression would mean that you squish all your clothes that are laid out on your bed into the suitcase. They're all squished, but they're all still there. If you open the suitcase at your destination, you pull out all the exact same clothes that were on your bed. You have lost nothing. It's lossless.
Lossy compression would mean that, in order to fit stuff into your suitcase, you have to leave some stuff behind. I mean, if you're almost bald, do you need hairspray? :-) When you unpack at your destination, you do *NOT* have everything that you planned on having--you *LOST* some stuff. This is why it's considered LOSSY compression--some things got thrown out.
Now, hopefully, the stuff that gets thrown out is the LEAST NECESSARY stuff, but it's still real stuff. Will you notice it missing? Probably not. But it is not, in fact, there anymore, and THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT BACK. It's Lossy.
PSD and TIFF and raw use lossless compression. It doesn't compress as well, but at least you have everything you started out with.
JPEG (other than, obviously, Lossless JPEG) is lossy. Stuff gets thrown out and there's no way to get it back. Does it matter? It might, it might not. Depends on your use of the image and how critical you and your customer are.
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Ah, now that Aperture is on the scene, I guess my old truism needs refinement.
In Photoshop or any other bitmap editor, don't use JPEGs as your master images.
In Aperture, with its nondestructive editing, changes to your image are saved in a database until you explicitly export the file. So you actually could use JPEGs as masters in Aperture. There'd be no harm that I can think of off the top of my head.
This is an interesting question. If you apply any corrections to a JPEG you'll be alright as long as you resave it as a TIFF, or in PS, as a PSD.
If you save it as a JPEG in Aperture, what will the program do? If Aperture doesn't touch the file, then your changes won't affect the JPEG because it won't see a change, and will just close as though nothing happened.
But at some point those changes have to be contained within the file if the file is used outside of the program. How would Aperture handle that?
The other question here is whether Aperture does non destructive editing on files other than RAW. I don't remember what they said about that in the class because they were concentrating so much on RAW, that the other file types supported were given cursory treatment.
But even RAW files have to be converted at some point, with their corrections internalized.
So the final result, at least would be changed, and recompressed. In between???
Converting it to TIFF would uncompress the JPEG. The resulting TIFF file would be a lower-quality TIFF file, but the resolution (pixel count) would stay the same.
Now, I'm interested in how well lossless JPEG compresses. is it, like with other lossless formats 1:2, so the lossless JPEG is half the size of the original full-quality version ? Or does it compress better/worse.
As the image is basically a set of color definitions, I would guess the compression would vary according to the color range, and would compress more if there are a lot of pixels with the exact same color, or pixels with the same intensity for either red, green or blue.
Performance is an issue for all compression, so there must be a balancing act between compression rate and performance of decompression (as compression is less of an issue).
Maybe we shouldn't be talking about lossless JPEG. There is only one lossless JPEG commonly available, and that's Adobe's Digital Negative. We can't manipulate that file as to compression. It is what it is. It's only meant to convert from the many RAW formats the camera manufacturers have to a more standardized format. As a matter of interest, Hasselblad uses Adobe's DN as its standard output - no RAW file at all.
That confuses the nomenclature because calling it an uncompressed JPEG would assume the information that was lost in compression is now restored. Which it is not. You've only moved the compressed image to a container that has more resolution and color space.
JPEG 2000 is a lossless compression codec that uses wavelet files is stipulated to be used in future 4K digital cinema projection.
JPEG 2000 is a lossy format. The advantage is that at the same compression as the older format, you get better quality. At greater comprtession you can get equal quality.
Given the same image file, JPEG 2000 can be compressed about 50% more, and give the same subjective quality.
Moreover, very low and very high compression rates (including lossless compression) are also supported in JPEG 2000.
From the JPEG committee website.
Quote:
JPEG 2000 uses 'wavelet'technology. and as well as being better at compressing images (up to 20 per cent plus), it can allow an image to be retained without any distortion or loss.
JPEG 2000 is the latest series of standards from the JPEG committee. The original standard for digital images (IS 10918-1, popularly referred to as JPEG) was developed 15 years ago, and with the major increase in computer technology since them, and lots of research, it was felt to be time for a new standard capable of handling many more aspects than simply making the digital image files as small as possible. JPEG 2000 uses 'wavelet'technology. and as well as being better at compressing images (up to 20 per cent plus), it can allow an image to be retained without any distortion or loss. Simply sending the first part of such a 'lossless' file to a receiver can result in a lossy version appearing (like present JPEG) - but continuing to transmit the file results in the fidelity getting better and better until the original image is restored..
What they mean by this is that as you continue the "send" the file, the size of the file enlarges until it equals the full original file size. It then is lossless.
The best way that I can explain this is to say that it works the same way a hologram does.
If you cut a standard hologram into four pieces each piece will have the full image but will be less sharp - contain less information. If you cut the parts further, each part again will contain the entire image, but with less information. If you put the pieces back together, they will contain all of the information. That's what they mean by contimuing to transmit the file.
As I stated this will be used as lossless motion picture projection.
I don't see how. Or Why. H.264 is the standard at this time for that. Remember that Lossless JPEG2000 is only lossless as the file size approaches the uncompressed file size.
They may have ambitions for this as a video standard, but so far it's been oriented towards still images, as was JPEG.
If you save it as a JPEG in Aperture, what will the program do? If Aperture doesn't touch the file, then your changes won't affect the JPEG because it won't see a change, and will just close as though nothing happened.
But at some point those changes have to be contained within the file if the file is used outside of the program. How would Aperture handle that?
From what I've read, there is no such thing as "File-->Save" in Aperture.
Aperture does not save modified images (unless you explicitly export them)--that's what makes it 'nondestructive editing'. Changes are saved as "instructions" (i.e., text commands) in a database.
If you want other apps to see the modified images, you have to export them. This is just like iTunes and some parts of iPhoto. Metadata for songs in iTunes is not stored in the song. You can change info about songs (including start and stop point for playback) but other apps won't see this. You can add keywords to pictures in iPhoto, but other apps won't see this. Likewise, changes to photos in Aperture are metadata, and are stored separately (much like ACR's .xmp files).
Using the Finder with images controlled by Aperture is a mistake. You will not see changes in the Finder; you will not see stacks in the Finder; you will not see versions in the Finder.
Aperture is the New Finder, so to speak, for images.
I wonder if this stacking and versions technology will someday be expanded into the regular Finder? That would be slick.
From what I've read, there is no such thing as "File-->Save" in Aperture.
Aperture does not save modified images (unless you explicitly export them)--that's what makes it 'nondestructive editing'. Changes are saved as "instructions" (i.e., text commands) in a database.
If you want other apps to see the modified images, you have to export them. This is just like iTunes and some parts of iPhoto. Metadata for songs in iTunes is not stored in the song. You can change info about songs (including start and stop point for playback) but other apps won't see this. You can add keywords to pictures in iPhoto, but other apps won't see this. Likewise, changes to photos in Aperture are metadata, and are stored separately (much like ACR's .xmp files).
Using the Finder with images controlled by Aperture is a mistake. You will not see changes in the Finder; you will not see stacks in the Finder; you will not see versions in the Finder.
Aperture is the New Finder, so to speak, for images.
I wonder if this stacking and versions technology will someday be expanded into the regular Finder? That would be slick.
Yes. But my point is that file - export is the same as file - save.
If you file - export to a JPEG, from a JPEG, you are going to experience all the losses you get from doing that from any other program.
Any editing program that allows these somewhat basic corrections will be fine as long as you save the file in the native state. It's always at the render point where you have problems.
This won't be a problem for a RAW file in Aperture, but a JPEG is still a JPEG in the end.
The goal of DCI was to establish digital cinema distribution parameters and out of that came the DCDM, the Digital Cinema Distribution Master, which stipulates a conversion of the materials to wide-gamut CIE XYZ color space and the use of the MXF (Material eXchange Format) file system and JPEG 2000 codec.
H.264 from my understanding is to mostly be used in small format presentation,
(20 inch to 60 inch screens).
Digital projection is not technically video as its requirments far exceed video recording formats or television presentation. Digital projection will require large image files that encode seven colors (red, green, blue, magenta, cyan, yellow and white) for large format presentation (30 foot to 60 foot screens).
H.264 from my understanding is to mostly be used in small format presentation,
(20 inch to 60 inch screens).
Digital projection is not technically video as its requirments far exceed video recording formats or television presentation. Digital projection will require large image files that encode seven colors (red, green, blue, magenta, cyan, yellow and white) for large format presentation (30 foot to 60 foot screens).
Two things.
One is that video is every electronic delivery mode of moving images, i.e. movies, TV shows. Film is, of course, not video, and is the only format that isn't.
The projectors that have been going in theaters, and are going in now, are RGB projectors. Unless they change them in the future. They aren't using JPEG2000.
Right now, there are three completely different standards in theater digital projectors. Sony and Warner have been negotiating (fighting) about what standard will be used. Right now, Disney is also in the middle of it because of its 3D flick whuch will only work on digital projection.
I'm willing to give this a rest. We won't know what the end will be for at least another year. Possibly two. They are still fighting (negotiating) with the theater owners as to how this will be paid for.
Any editing program that allows these somewhat basic corrections will be fine as long as you save the file in the native state.
Well then it's not JPEG anymore, is it?
If you go back and look at my post where I first bring up editing JPEGs in Aperture, you'll see that I was using Aperture as something that breaks the long-held truism in Photoshop: Never work with JPEGs. Always convert them to PSD or TIFF, because each time you re-save the image as a JPEG you are degrading the image.
This a workflow that anyone who knows Photoshop knows not to do:
1. Open JPEG.
2. Make change (e.g. contrast, channels, whatever).
3. Save & close file.
4. Change mind.
5. Open JPEG.
6. Make new change.
7. Save & close file.
Every time you save the JPEG in Photoshop you degrade it. (Unless you backed up the original JPEG, you have lost the "digital negative" after even the very first Save.)
That workflow is perfectly fine in Aperture (as long as you think JPEGs are OK). The JPEG is treated as a digital negative. No changes are made to it no matter how many times you make corrections. Only when you export it out of Aperture does it get modified.
So if you change your mind, just edit it again in Aperture and export it out again--you get a fresh copy with none of the degradation from the first time you exported it.
Comments
By definition of the word it would mean reverse the process of compression.
The purpose of a compressed image is not only to have a smaller image for storage but also less information contained in that image which means less information to process.
If RAW is the same as a native CMOS image. By definition you are working with more information and a larger file, which would be more information to process.
Originally posted by TenoBell
So descibe what you mean by uncompress.
By definition of the word it would mean reverse the process of compression.
The purpose of a compressed image is not only to have a smaller image for storage but also less information contained in that image which means less information to process.
If RAW is the same as a native CMOS image. By definition you are working with more information and a larger file, which would be more information to process.
There are two kinds of compression: lossy and lossless. Think of it like packing a suitcase.
Lossless compression would mean that you squish all your clothes that are laid out on your bed into the suitcase. They're all squished, but they're all still there. If you open the suitcase at your destination, you pull out all the exact same clothes that were on your bed. You have lost nothing. It's lossless.
Lossy compression would mean that, in order to fit stuff into your suitcase, you have to leave some stuff behind. I mean, if you're almost bald, do you need hairspray? :-) When you unpack at your destination, you do *NOT* have everything that you planned on having--you *LOST* some stuff. This is why it's considered LOSSY compression--some things got thrown out.
Now, hopefully, the stuff that gets thrown out is the LEAST NECESSARY stuff, but it's still real stuff. Will you notice it missing? Probably not. But it is not, in fact, there anymore, and THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT BACK. It's Lossy.
PSD and TIFF and raw use lossless compression. It doesn't compress as well, but at least you have everything you started out with.
JPEG (other than, obviously, Lossless JPEG) is lossy. Stuff gets thrown out and there's no way to get it back. Does it matter? It might, it might not. Depends on your use of the image and how critical you and your customer are.
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Ah, now that Aperture is on the scene, I guess my old truism needs refinement.
In Photoshop or any other bitmap editor, don't use JPEGs as your master images.
In Aperture, with its nondestructive editing, changes to your image are saved in a database until you explicitly export the file. So you actually could use JPEGs as masters in Aperture. There'd be no harm that I can think of off the top of my head.
And yes I do know JPEG is a very lossy codec. That is why I am asking about processing power and editing JPEG images vs RAW images.
So now I see you are talking about converting JPEG into a higher format for manipulating. Now that makes sense to me and I can understand. The same thing is done in the video world. DV is converted to HD for manipulation because of the increased resolution and color space.
If a JPEG is converted into a TIFF, I would not call that an uncompressed JPEG, it is a low resolution TIFF.
Originally posted by TenoBell
If a JPEG is converted into a TIFF, I would not call that an uncompressed JPEG, it is a low resolution TIFF.
Converting it to TIFF would uncompress the JPEG. The resulting TIFF file would be a lower-quality TIFF file, but the resolution (pixel count) would stay the same.
Now, I'm interested in how well lossless JPEG compresses. is it, like with other lossless formats 1:2, so the lossless JPEG is half the size of the original full-quality version ? Or does it compress better/worse.
As the image is basically a set of color definitions, I would guess the compression would vary according to the color range, and would compress more if there are a lot of pixels with the exact same color, or pixels with the same intensity for either red, green or blue.
Performance is an issue for all compression, so there must be a balancing act between compression rate and performance of decompression (as compression is less of an issue).
JPEG 2000 is a lossless compression codec that uses wavelet files is stipulated to be used in future 4K digital cinema projection.
Originally posted by bikertwin
There are two kinds of compression: lossy and lossless. Think of it like packing a suitcase.
Lossless compression would mean that you squish all your clothes that are laid out on your bed into the suitcase. They're all squished, but they're all still there. If you open the suitcase at your destination, you pull out all the exact same clothes that were on your bed. You have lost nothing. It's lossless.
Lossy compression would mean that, in order to fit stuff into your suitcase, you have to leave some stuff behind. I mean, if you're almost bald, do you need hairspray? :-) When you unpack at your destination, you do *NOT* have everything that you planned on having--you *LOST* some stuff. This is why it's considered LOSSY compression--some things got thrown out.
Now, hopefully, the stuff that gets thrown out is the LEAST NECESSARY stuff, but it's still real stuff. Will you notice it missing? Probably not. But it is not, in fact, there anymore, and THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT BACK. It's Lossy.
PSD and TIFF and raw use lossless compression. It doesn't compress as well, but at least you have everything you started out with.
JPEG (other than, obviously, Lossless JPEG) is lossy. Stuff gets thrown out and there's no way to get it back. Does it matter? It might, it might not. Depends on your use of the image and how critical you and your customer are.
Whatever you do, never edit in JPEG. JPEG should only be used as final output (exported). Every time you save a JPEG you are losing some (typically small) amount of information. You should generally convert a JPEG to a PSD or TIFF before editing, then apply layers and such (if desired) then save your master as the PSD or TIFF. You can then export from that to a JPEG for web or whatever use, but always keep your PSD or TIFF master if you ever want to go back and make changes.
Yes, very good.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Ah, now that Aperture is on the scene, I guess my old truism needs refinement.
In Photoshop or any other bitmap editor, don't use JPEGs as your master images.
In Aperture, with its nondestructive editing, changes to your image are saved in a database until you explicitly export the file. So you actually could use JPEGs as masters in Aperture. There'd be no harm that I can think of off the top of my head.
This is an interesting question. If you apply any corrections to a JPEG you'll be alright as long as you resave it as a TIFF, or in PS, as a PSD.
If you save it as a JPEG in Aperture, what will the program do? If Aperture doesn't touch the file, then your changes won't affect the JPEG because it won't see a change, and will just close as though nothing happened.
But at some point those changes have to be contained within the file if the file is used outside of the program. How would Aperture handle that?
The other question here is whether Aperture does non destructive editing on files other than RAW. I don't remember what they said about that in the class because they were concentrating so much on RAW, that the other file types supported were given cursory treatment.
But even RAW files have to be converted at some point, with their corrections internalized.
So the final result, at least would be changed, and recompressed. In between???
Originally posted by BoeManE
Converting it to TIFF would uncompress the JPEG. The resulting TIFF file would be a lower-quality TIFF file, but the resolution (pixel count) would stay the same.
Now, I'm interested in how well lossless JPEG compresses. is it, like with other lossless formats 1:2, so the lossless JPEG is half the size of the original full-quality version ? Or does it compress better/worse.
As the image is basically a set of color definitions, I would guess the compression would vary according to the color range, and would compress more if there are a lot of pixels with the exact same color, or pixels with the same intensity for either red, green or blue.
Performance is an issue for all compression, so there must be a balancing act between compression rate and performance of decompression (as compression is less of an issue).
Maybe we shouldn't be talking about lossless JPEG. There is only one lossless JPEG commonly available, and that's Adobe's Digital Negative. We can't manipulate that file as to compression. It is what it is. It's only meant to convert from the many RAW formats the camera manufacturers have to a more standardized format. As a matter of interest, Hasselblad uses Adobe's DN as its standard output - no RAW file at all.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That confuses the nomenclature because calling it an uncompressed JPEG would assume the information that was lost in compression is now restored. Which it is not. You've only moved the compressed image to a container that has more resolution and color space.
JPEG 2000 is a lossless compression codec that uses wavelet files is stipulated to be used in future 4K digital cinema projection.
JPEG 2000 is a lossy format. The advantage is that at the same compression as the older format, you get better quality. At greater comprtession you can get equal quality.
Given the same image file, JPEG 2000 can be compressed about 50% more, and give the same subjective quality.
Moreover, very low and very high compression rates (including lossless compression) are also supported in JPEG 2000.
From the JPEG committee website.
JPEG 2000 uses 'wavelet'technology. and as well as being better at compressing images (up to 20 per cent plus), it can allow an image to be retained without any distortion or loss.
Originally posted by TenoBell
From the JPEG committee website.
Let's quote the entire paragraph.
JPEG 2000 is the latest series of standards from the JPEG committee. The original standard for digital images (IS 10918-1, popularly referred to as JPEG) was developed 15 years ago, and with the major increase in computer technology since them, and lots of research, it was felt to be time for a new standard capable of handling many more aspects than simply making the digital image files as small as possible. JPEG 2000 uses 'wavelet'technology. and as well as being better at compressing images (up to 20 per cent plus), it can allow an image to be retained without any distortion or loss. Simply sending the first part of such a 'lossless' file to a receiver can result in a lossy version appearing (like present JPEG) - but continuing to transmit the file results in the fidelity getting better and better until the original image is restored..
What they mean by this is that as you continue the "send" the file, the size of the file enlarges until it equals the full original file size. It then is lossless.
The best way that I can explain this is to say that it works the same way a hologram does.
If you cut a standard hologram into four pieces each piece will have the full image but will be less sharp - contain less information. If you cut the parts further, each part again will contain the entire image, but with less information. If you put the pieces back together, they will contain all of the information. That's what they mean by contimuing to transmit the file.
Originally posted by TenoBell
As I stated this will be used as lossless motion picture projection.
I don't see how. Or Why. H.264 is the standard at this time for that. Remember that Lossless JPEG2000 is only lossless as the file size approaches the uncompressed file size.
They may have ambitions for this as a video standard, but so far it's been oriented towards still images, as was JPEG.
Originally posted by melgross
This is an interesting question....
If you save it as a JPEG in Aperture, what will the program do? If Aperture doesn't touch the file, then your changes won't affect the JPEG because it won't see a change, and will just close as though nothing happened.
But at some point those changes have to be contained within the file if the file is used outside of the program. How would Aperture handle that?
From what I've read, there is no such thing as "File-->Save" in Aperture.
Aperture does not save modified images (unless you explicitly export them)--that's what makes it 'nondestructive editing'. Changes are saved as "instructions" (i.e., text commands) in a database.
If you want other apps to see the modified images, you have to export them. This is just like iTunes and some parts of iPhoto. Metadata for songs in iTunes is not stored in the song. You can change info about songs (including start and stop point for playback) but other apps won't see this. You can add keywords to pictures in iPhoto, but other apps won't see this. Likewise, changes to photos in Aperture are metadata, and are stored separately (much like ACR's .xmp files).
Using the Finder with images controlled by Aperture is a mistake. You will not see changes in the Finder; you will not see stacks in the Finder; you will not see versions in the Finder.
Aperture is the New Finder, so to speak, for images.
I wonder if this stacking and versions technology will someday be expanded into the regular Finder? That would be slick.
Originally posted by bikertwin
From what I've read, there is no such thing as "File-->Save" in Aperture.
Aperture does not save modified images (unless you explicitly export them)--that's what makes it 'nondestructive editing'. Changes are saved as "instructions" (i.e., text commands) in a database.
If you want other apps to see the modified images, you have to export them. This is just like iTunes and some parts of iPhoto. Metadata for songs in iTunes is not stored in the song. You can change info about songs (including start and stop point for playback) but other apps won't see this. You can add keywords to pictures in iPhoto, but other apps won't see this. Likewise, changes to photos in Aperture are metadata, and are stored separately (much like ACR's .xmp files).
Using the Finder with images controlled by Aperture is a mistake. You will not see changes in the Finder; you will not see stacks in the Finder; you will not see versions in the Finder.
Aperture is the New Finder, so to speak, for images.
I wonder if this stacking and versions technology will someday be expanded into the regular Finder? That would be slick.
Yes. But my point is that file - export is the same as file - save.
If you file - export to a JPEG, from a JPEG, you are going to experience all the losses you get from doing that from any other program.
Any editing program that allows these somewhat basic corrections will be fine as long as you save the file in the native state. It's always at the render point where you have problems.
This won't be a problem for a RAW file in Aperture, but a JPEG is still a JPEG in the end.
The goal of DCI was to establish digital cinema distribution parameters and out of that came the DCDM, the Digital Cinema Distribution Master, which stipulates a conversion of the materials to wide-gamut CIE XYZ color space and the use of the MXF (Material eXchange Format) file system and JPEG 2000 codec.
H.264 from my understanding is to mostly be used in small format presentation,
(20 inch to 60 inch screens).
Digital projection is not technically video as its requirments far exceed video recording formats or television presentation. Digital projection will require large image files that encode seven colors (red, green, blue, magenta, cyan, yellow and white) for large format presentation (30 foot to 60 foot screens).
Originally posted by TenoBell
From the Digital Cinema Initiative
H.264 from my understanding is to mostly be used in small format presentation,
(20 inch to 60 inch screens).
Digital projection is not technically video as its requirments far exceed video recording formats or television presentation. Digital projection will require large image files that encode seven colors (red, green, blue, magenta, cyan, yellow and white) for large format presentation (30 foot to 60 foot screens).
Two things.
One is that video is every electronic delivery mode of moving images, i.e. movies, TV shows. Film is, of course, not video, and is the only format that isn't.
The projectors that have been going in theaters, and are going in now, are RGB projectors. Unless they change them in the future. They aren't using JPEG2000.
Right now, there are three completely different standards in theater digital projectors. Sony and Warner have been negotiating (fighting) about what standard will be used. Right now, Disney is also in the middle of it because of its 3D flick whuch will only work on digital projection.
I'm willing to give this a rest. We won't know what the end will be for at least another year. Possibly two. They are still fighting (negotiating) with the theater owners as to how this will be paid for.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7888-8071
Oops, meant to add this very good article from the site as well.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7887-8063
Originally posted by melgross
Any editing program that allows these somewhat basic corrections will be fine as long as you save the file in the native state.
Well then it's not JPEG anymore, is it?
If you go back and look at my post where I first bring up editing JPEGs in Aperture, you'll see that I was using Aperture as something that breaks the long-held truism in Photoshop: Never work with JPEGs. Always convert them to PSD or TIFF, because each time you re-save the image as a JPEG you are degrading the image.
This a workflow that anyone who knows Photoshop knows not to do:
1. Open JPEG.
2. Make change (e.g. contrast, channels, whatever).
3. Save & close file.
4. Change mind.
5. Open JPEG.
6. Make new change.
7. Save & close file.
Every time you save the JPEG in Photoshop you degrade it. (Unless you backed up the original JPEG, you have lost the "digital negative" after even the very first Save.)
That workflow is perfectly fine in Aperture (as long as you think JPEGs are OK). The JPEG is treated as a digital negative. No changes are made to it no matter how many times you make corrections. Only when you export it out of Aperture does it get modified.
So if you change your mind, just edit it again in Aperture and export it out again--you get a fresh copy with none of the degradation from the first time you exported it.
Purty nice!