[filmscanners] RE: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

I agree that for web use Jpg may very well be a necessity and that
sharpening just before converting to a given level of compression when
converting to JPG may be the best way to go since in most case those
downloading the web image will not be resizing the image for serious uses
and/or then resaving that reworked image at a differetn level of compression
as a new JPG file using the "Save As" function.  For other than web work,
some have suggested that saving an image for archival purposes as a LWZ
compressed TIFF file is the best way to go for compression without
artifacts.  I, personally, use Genuine Fractals to produce a compressed
working archival file in which I sharpen the image prior to encoding or
leave it unsharpened until I open it up at the size that I need it to be.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka
Sr.
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:37 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for
different purposes]


True enough, but if the image requires sharpening?  JPG is not a good
format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web.  I
would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen
in TIFF and then convert.  I haven't tested but I think it would result in
fewer artifacts.

Maris


....snip...
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body