JPG durability
Nov 8, 2019 07:38:29 #
LFingar wrote:
Don't be so quick to say no. There could be some force at work here we don't understand. Every time I look in the mirror, for example, I seem to have less hair! That archivist might be on to something!
Nov 8, 2019 07:58:48 #
DaveC
Loc: Illinois
A JPEG does not change even when saved. Only if a change has been made to the image is a Save done.
Nov 8, 2019 08:00:47 #
My jpegs from 2005 are the same as when took them with my Pentax Wipio and they've been opened and moved around a lot. Tell the "Archive Expert" to go back to his/her previous job flipping burgers.
Nov 8, 2019 08:41:30 #
wrangler5
Loc: Missouri
The files that my computer screen savers cycle across the screen are all JPEGs. They've been running for years with no visible loss of quality.
Nov 8, 2019 08:47:23 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
JPEG's are not changed if they are only opened, viewed, and then closed. There is no loss.
Nov 8, 2019 08:49:04 #
LFingar wrote:
Don't be so quick to say no. There could be some force at work here we don't understand. Every time I look in the mirror, for example, I seem to have less hair! That archivist might be on to something!
Rolling on the floor laughing! I’m almost bald, too.
Nov 8, 2019 08:56:43 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I find it interesting that people running an archive don't know much about preservation and "wear." You don't wear out a picture bu looking at it.
It's editing and re-saving the picture that can cause a loss of quality. As an experiment, I opened, modified, and saved a JPEG picture over a hundred times. I didn't see any loss in quality.
It's editing and re-saving the picture that can cause a loss of quality. As an experiment, I opened, modified, and saved a JPEG picture over a hundred times. I didn't see any loss in quality.
If you have to open re-edit and save over 100 times you might consider that there is something horribly wrong with the original photo to begin with.
Nov 8, 2019 10:03:25 #
Nov 8, 2019 10:46:46 #
Nov 8, 2019 11:19:30 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
The ignorant archive is confusing digital data with changes when changing generations of physical media.....original scene to a negative, negative to a print, copying a print, etc.
Digital data does not change from opening and closing a file, unless you do something to edit/modify it. The only thing that they could be thinking of is if the digital media ....memory card, optical disk, hard drive, whatever.....is failing. Then you'd have obvious major failure of an image to open. But not "deterioration" of the image.
Digital data does not change from opening and closing a file, unless you do something to edit/modify it. The only thing that they could be thinking of is if the digital media ....memory card, optical disk, hard drive, whatever.....is failing. Then you'd have obvious major failure of an image to open. But not "deterioration" of the image.
Nov 8, 2019 11:36:39 #
Nov 8, 2019 11:36:48 #
nadelewitz wrote:
The ignorant archive is confusing digital data wit... (show quote)
That would be illogical as ALL files, not just JPEGs, would be susceptible to loss via a media fault.
Nov 8, 2019 11:45:54 #
Harry0
Loc: Gardena, Cal
Well, almost kinda sorta ... but not really. A little knowledge goes a long way towards ignorance.
Yes you can view a jpg thousands of times, and not change anything. All the same.
BUT! If you open the file in certain programs, and THEN SAVE it, it ain't the same.
Used to be called "The Xerox Effect". Some minions would make copies of a document, distribute the original with the copies, and keep a copy. And again. And again. 10 (or more) cycles later it's unreadable.
It sounds like these arty minions aren't "copying" this file into a directory, they are "saving" it there. And when they want to send it somewhere, they reopen the new file, and "save to". Impressionism reborn!
Yes you can view a jpg thousands of times, and not change anything. All the same.
BUT! If you open the file in certain programs, and THEN SAVE it, it ain't the same.
Used to be called "The Xerox Effect". Some minions would make copies of a document, distribute the original with the copies, and keep a copy. And again. And again. 10 (or more) cycles later it's unreadable.
It sounds like these arty minions aren't "copying" this file into a directory, they are "saving" it there. And when they want to send it somewhere, they reopen the new file, and "save to". Impressionism reborn!
Nov 8, 2019 12:09:18 #
cahale
Loc: San Angelo, TX
Put them in the idiot class. There is nothing unique about a .jpeg as a digital file. It degrades at the same rate as other files. Never.
Nov 8, 2019 12:16:19 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
Longshadow wrote:
That would be illogical as ALL files, not just JPEGs, would be susceptible to loss via a media fault.
What would be illogical in what I said? Of course all files are subject to LOSS if media fails. Files can also be corrupted so they are not readable. But the original conversation was about a photographic image losing detail and other IMAGE properties.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.