TVGirlsGallery.co.uk - Imagehost

(26-06-2011 10:35 )dirk362 Wrote:  Seems babeimage.co.uk has some issues this morning...

I'll check it out and see what the problem is.

I've reuploaded the php file that was causing the error message to appear and all seems to be well now.

I've uploaded a few single jpg images to tvgirlsgallery and it seems to degrade them slightly. Examples can be seen here and here, they both definitely show signs of increased pixellation from the original. I realise that jpg's are lossy but it still seems a bit too noticeable from being a simple upload. Is this just the result of the upload process?

A couple of typo's for your attention.




Also, in reference to my previous post, looking at both images here they clearly shows degradation around the text, which is not present on the original saved images. Is this reduction in quality to be expected, or are the uploaded images deliberately saved as lower quality jpgs?

Thanks very much for pointing out the typo's.

Regarding the image quality, can you PM/email the original images that you detect have been degraded when uploaded and I'll investigate it for you.

(07-08-2011 11:49 )admin Wrote:  Thanks very much for pointing out the typo's.

Regarding the image quality, can you PM/email the original images that you detect have been degraded when uploaded and I'll investigate it for you.

Here are the original saved versions of the above images, these are the direct sources for the uploads.

       

I assume that, as attachments, these are the ACTUAL images, ie. not copies; whereas when they are uploaded they are COPIES and not the originals?

Sorry, I would PM or email them, but then I'd have to upload them again somewhere to do that.

EDIT: As an addition, reducing the brightness of the images together highlights the amount of degradation more clearly.

   

EDIT: I have just saved one of the original images but as an 85% quality jpg this time, it displays very similar noise/degredation as the uploaded image.

Does the upload process perhaps take a copy of the image, then resave it, but not at 100% quality?

(07-08-2011 17:16 )lucent-x Wrote:  Sorry, I would PM or email them, but then I'd have to upload them again somewhere to do that.

It's OK, supplying them as attachments as you did is fine.

(07-08-2011 17:16 )lucent-x Wrote:  Does the upload process perhaps take a copy of the image, then resave it, but not at 100% quality?

Yes this is correct, the upload process compresses the image which means that the uploaded copy is not of the original quality. However, I've just tweaked the settings a little and reduced the compression rate.

(14-08-2011 12:33 )admin Wrote:  Yes this is correct, the upload process compresses the image which means that the uploaded copy is not of the original quality. However, I've just tweaked the settings a little and reduced the compression rate.

Thanks, just tried it and it is a noticeable improvement.

What's the reason for the <100% quality compression method, is it purely to keep file sizes down? I understand that for photos a quality of ~80% should be fine and not produce too noticeable degradation, but screen captures - which are already unavoidably 'noisy' when taken from source - maybe need a higher/maximum quality setting?

As a suggestion for future development, how about an option for 'screen shots' which would then upload with 100% quality. If you then set an image size limit of say 300kb, it would prevent anyone abusing it by uploading hq photos with that option.

I'm sorry, but I'm confussed with all this

I already compress my JPG's to 80%, and as long as it's within the size limit allowed, why do you need to re-compress it further? It makes the upload size limit pointless if your going to re-compress anyway.

I use this site primarilarly to display full size examples for my video posts, to show resolution & quality. But if your re-compressing it, then it's not a true representation of my video quality.

I hope you correct this soon, as I would much prefer to use your site than look for another one. But I don't want to misslead the members into thinking the quality is worse than it is.