Firefox 109.0a1, Chrome 110.0.5449.0 (Official Build) dev (64-bit)
Please find a better archiver. Both files are fine here.
Install p7zip?
I hate Apple. 🙁
Manjaro.com if you want to try it - you can to a live boot from a stick or disk even on a Mac I think...
I've run Linux for 15 years because at the time Windows XP pissed me off for the last time (Windows 11 is bloated but at least it doesn't crash every twenty second - If you must use Windows, go with 11 IMHO).
It's the open source "zip" tool used forever... Can you open the .tar i posted? If not, I will make the effort to boot into Windows, and use it's built in garbage (I haven't installed 7zip because I hardly use Windows) to compress you a new file.
At this point I feel like it might be faster to send it by email. You have my address I think since you administer this site 🙂
Thank you for your efforts to make this site and provide this for the world. To me, this is the Wikipedia of audio.
Last edited:
People with a new phone will know it. I have a Samsung Fold 3.
Although it is listed as an advanced feature that might be imcompatable with some sites, this it the only site I've not had a seemless experience with,
One last question,
In your opinion, which it the best format to upload in save for JPG (double lossey compression because transcode)? Till now, I've used PNG and I can't think of another format.
Do we support SVG yet? Not for photos of course, but for schematics and PCB layouts.
In your opinion, which it the best format to upload in save for JPG (double lossey compression because transcode)? Till now, I've used PNG and I can't think of another format.
Do we support SVG yet? Not for photos of course, but for schematics and PCB layouts.
Define "better" 🙂 One that outputs a file that can be opened by the audience?
Thanks, your .tar opened on OSX no problem.
I opened the HEIC in OSX preview and saved it with default (I assume 80%) JPG settings. The 3.7MB HEIC turned into a 5.01MB JPG. I compared them zoomed in side by side, and can't tell the difference, despite lossy images usually losing quality due to recompression using a different lossy algorithm and having to process and compress all the artefacts as well as the same. I've attached a pixel perfect side by side comparison PNG, saved in a .zip to avoid the forum recompressing it, and it's good to see that at least I can't tell the difference between the two.
So - good news. Your image looks fine as a JPG, slightly larger in file size, and viewable by all browsers, instead of no browsers. I think the 15% increase in size is worth it in this case, even 100% would be.
Koda - I just wanted to say thank you for bringing up this topic. It's been enlightening and I've enjoyed catching up on the latest stats for various formats, learning about HEIC, and gathering some plans to improve the user experience for both posters and readers in the future. Many thanks.
Can you rephrase this, as it don't really understand the question. "Format to upload in save for"?
Digital art - PNG
Line art - PNG
Photographs - JPG
Schematics - PNG or SVG
Let's see... [EDIT: Yes, they can be uploaded, no they won't display natively - something to improve there IMO. I recall researching this last year and there was some obscure reason it couldn't be done at present, I'd like to see vectors appearing on the page myself.]
The HEIC/HEIF issue have already been extensively discussed back in March 2022, and here's my verdict on it.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...t-heif-format-for-images.384036/#post-6970588
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...t-heif-format-for-images.384036/#post-6970588
Better seems to be .tar in this case but that leaves out Windows users by default. Anyone on Linux will make a zip just like I did.
Is there a Windows user who will download the zip and report if they can open it?
I use 90% JPG quality (because that's the default in GIMP)
A clip from your "screenshot" attachment:
I can't read the chip numbers.
I expect this quality (if the original is capable): First attempt - file too large but it's a JPG. So I look: JPG is 2.4M
EDIT: I couldn't post it. It exceeded the limit.
ten bytes
See the difference? I can't read the numbers on the pic above, but I can see the strands of dust in the one I posted.
EDIT: Still not the DIP8 chips... Too much dust!
See the difference? I can't read the numbers on the pic above, but I can see the strands of dust in the one I posted.
EDIT: Still not the DIP8 chips... Too much dust!
Attachments
Last edited:
Aha! The problem seems to be 10MB per message, not file.
That JPG was 9.3MB but I couldn't attach it to the example of why JPG is trash. Edit: I apologize. That was rude of me. It might just be the camera.
Also, If I load the image (on my computer by double clicking it to see it) and "copy" the image, I can't paste it to the forum so it doesn't show inline. But if I "attach" it, it works but no preview (by default. I'm sure there's code to make it work, I just don't know how).
That JPG was 9.3MB but I couldn't attach it to the example of why JPG is trash. Edit: I apologize. That was rude of me. It might just be the camera.
Also, If I load the image (on my computer by double clicking it to see it) and "copy" the image, I can't paste it to the forum so it doesn't show inline. But if I "attach" it, it works but no preview (by default. I'm sure there's code to make it work, I just don't know how).
Let’s be sure not to confuse the technical qualities of an image format with its practical qualities. 😉 JPEG is by far the winner for practical qualities. It is the most universal read image format and is a decent trade off of size vs quality.
For sure there are technically better formats for images, but support for them is spotty.
A far more important issue is the general lack of knowledge of how to use the various image formats. One might hope that people who are well versed in, and can argue Wav, FLAC, APE, Ogg and MP3 formats would understand image formats.
Alas this is not so.
For sure there are technically better formats for images, but support for them is spotty.
A far more important issue is the general lack of knowledge of how to use the various image formats. One might hope that people who are well versed in, and can argue Wav, FLAC, APE, Ogg and MP3 formats would understand image formats.
Alas this is not so.
This is exactly what I see when I look at your original HEIC file. Your HEIC looks exactly the same. You can't read your chip numbers on your original file. There is no difference in image quality.
Ok, I think I've said enough in this thread... Koda - I applaud you for your cutting edge adventuring. I'll take leave of this conversation for now, I think I've answered your original questions, provided answers on why things are so, and hopefully explained a few things.
Absolutely.
Opinions: WAV is a waste of space, FLAC is the only lossless format you need (unless you're using a closed platform that doesn't allow it), Opus is the best lossy format (again unless you have a closed platform to work with), FOSS and performs better than any other lossless format as of the last time I checked.
Ogg is good, APE is also lossless isn't it? But proprietary, And you're right, it's a trade off. CPU time and power vs file size and quality.
Earlier I tried to post a PNG. It took my R9 3900X like 10 seconds to compress it although I think the encoder is single core. The JPG saved almost before I could release the mouse button.
How can you possibly say that? The photo I posted clearly show the detail on all the SMD parts, none of which are legiable in the crop of the photo I posted of the file in #27.
I’d love to see something like HEIC become widely supported. Better quality for the same file size? Same quality in a smaller file size? What’s not to like?
But the HEIC files from my phone have been a pain in the backside. I’ll wait until it’s more universal.
Of course we had JPEG 2000 which was kind of a bust.
But the HEIC files from my phone have been a pain in the backside. I’ll wait until it’s more universal.
Of course we had JPEG 2000 which was kind of a bust.
Yes, I see the difference. They are different pictures. I'm not sure what you're asking.
If you post an original image, in a .zip file, we can all talk about that image and make suggestions for how you can best compress it.
Please note that any JPG, PNG, or GIF that is uploaded, is post-processed several minutes later by passing it off to reSmush.it or Kraken.io for it to be compressed "to a reasonable factor". Some minutes later you will find the image is smaller, and may have lost a bit of image quality.
If you want to protect an image from being re-compressed, you need to hide it within an archive, like a .zip.
My screenshot I posted was of both your original 3.7MB HEIC, and my 5MB JPG version of it, opened and zoomed side by side. There is no difference I can see. In your original 3.7MB HEIC, the chip numbers look exactly as you describe, unreadable.
I'm really not sure what you're asking.
Which photo? Not your 3.7MB HEIC?