JPG Denoising

[Jay123210599]

How do I get rid of jpg artifacts? Do I use denoising or something else? How do I make the best jpg files? Do they have higher quality than lossy webp? How do I get rid of artifacts from lossy jxl, if that's better?

[_Al_]

That would be a legit question for some project.
But in your case, what are you going to do with clean up image? Save it to jpg again, exactly the same way as you obtained jpg in the first place? That would make no sense then, you'd stuck in cause-effect loop.

[Jay123210599]

That would be a legit question for some project.
But in your case, what are you going to do with clean up image? Save it to jpg again, exactly the same way as you obtained jpg in the first place? That would make no sense then, you'd stuck in cause-effect loop.

What shold I do then, save as a lossless file like png, only for it to be bigger?

[davexnet]

That would be a legit question for some project.
But in your case, what are you going to do with clean up image? Save it to jpg again, exactly the same way as you obtained jpg in the first place? That would make no sense then, you'd stuck in cause-effect loop.

What shold I do then, save as a lossless file like png, only for it to be bigger?

What you should do depends on your use case, which you haven't really explained.
You're just going around in circles

[poisondeathray]

And it's impossible to denoise perfectly without losing even more details .

[Cornucopia]

No, @jay, they do not have higher quality. You cannot get higher quality, you can only get equal or lower quality.

After doing a process, it may appear, subjectively...to YOU..., that they are higher quality. But they could also appear subjectively to others to be of lower quality. There are 1000s of examples here and elsewhere on the Internet referring to this: whether it is sharpening, denoising, up-rezzing, colorizing, "restoration", "enhancement".


Scott

[Jay123210599]

Okay, here's another idea. I have 5GB worth of images, and I want to compress them in an archive file of 1GB. How do I do that?

Or, how do I compress those images greatly without lowering the color/bit depth (I do not care if it's not lossless, I just need the output to be in 24bit, like my input images)?

[Cornucopia]

Okay, here's another idea. Please explain, why you need these already-compressed files to be further compressed in an "archive file"?

How you answer can help us direct you, it's not that we're so curious or nosey.


Scott

[poisondeathray]

Okay, here's another idea. I have 5GB worth of images, and I want to compress them in an archive file of 1GB. How do I do that?

If the 5GB was already compressed, like a PNG sequence, it's impossible

Or, how do I compress those images greatly without lowering the color/bit depth (I do not care if it's not lossless, I just need the output to be in 24bit, like my input images)?

This one is easy, use a very low quality setting . The lower the quality the lower the filesize - you can do that at the same bit depth . You could probably reduce it to a few MB at very very very low quality at the same bit depth

[Jay123210599]

Okay, here's another idea. I have 5GB worth of images, and I want to compress them in an archive file of 1GB. How do I do that?

If the 5GB was already compressed, like a PNG sequence, it's impossible

Or, how do I compress those images greatly without lowering the color/bit depth (I do not care if it's not lossless, I just need the output to be in 24bit, like my input images)?

This one is easy, use a very low quality setting . The lower the quality the lower the filesize - you can do that at the same bit depth . You could probably reduce it to a few MB at very very very low quality at the same bit depth

A lower setting in what? At how much percentage so that people won't know the difference?

[poisondeathray]

A lower setting in what? At how much percentage so that people won't know the difference?

Whatever format you choose

People have different perceptions - but at least a small % will know the difference . This was already discussed, it also depends on who the audience is

The higher the lossy compression ratio, the more artifacts, the more detail and quality loss , the more noticable to more people

1/5 for the size of PNG for a lossy compression image will be noticable to significantly more people. Jpeg-XL is probably your best choice. This was already discussed and suggested in many of your repeated threads. The jpeg-XL with good quality was about 1/3 of the size of the PNG. Making it 1/5 of the size will be noticable to more people, because there will be more detail loss, more artifacts.

Nobody will want to download a full image sequence. Period. It's stupid. Not when a video will be much smaller in size and/or higher quality at the same total size, not matter what quality level you choose. If you need to bypass an acceptable file format upload, then put the video in a zip archive (not for compression purposes, just to allow uploading)

[Jay123210599]

A lower setting in what? At how much percentage so that people won't know the difference?

Whatever format you choose

People have different perceptions - but at least a small % will know the difference . This was already discussed, it also depends on who the audience is

The higher the lossy compression ratio, the more artifacts, the more detail and quality loss , the more noticable to more people

1/5 for the size of PNG for a lossy compression image will be noticable to significantly more people. Jpeg-XL is probably your best choice. This was already discussed and suggested in many of your repeated threads. The jpeg-XL with good quality was about 1/3 of the size of the PNG. Making it 1/5 of the size will be noticable to more people, because there will be more detail loss, more artifacts.

Nobody will want to download a full image sequence. Period. It's stupid. Not when a video will be much smaller in size and/or higher quality at the same total size, not matter what quality level you choose. If you need to bypass an acceptable file format upload, then put the video in a zip archive (not for compression purposes, just to allow uploading)

My audience are viewers from DeviantArt, so my only options for smaller file sizes are jpg and webp (trust me, you can upload them). What should I do? How do I compress png files without lowering the color/bit depth? What is the best software to convert png to jpg or webp?

One more thing, how do I set the file size for png files to a certain amount?

[poisondeathray]

My audience are viewers from DeviantArt, so my only options for smaller file sizes are jpg and webp (trust me, you can upload them).

You can submit them, but it doesn't mean anyone will download an entire image sequence. (Someone might get tricked into it unknowingly )

If you're limiting your options to jpg and webp, then you have no choice. Use larger files, or suffer the low quality. Lossless webp is always lower in filesize than (lossless) PNG . Or live with some quality loss and use a jpeg. Lossy webp is ok for low quality images too . It's the high quality lossy webp that isn't very good

Or link to an archive download, like most people at DA use. A 3rd party host where you can download a higher quality, smaller filesize video directly - such as Google Drive . You bypass all DA restrictions . And nobody will want to download an image sequence, when you can have higher quality and /or smaller filesizes with video .

What should I do? How do I compress png files without lowering the color/bit depth?

Don't focus on bit depth, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality. If I lower it to 1bit then raise back to 8bit, the image will look severely degraded but still be fake "8bit" . Similarly if you start with 8bit image, then make it 16bit, you don't suddenly get much higher precision. It's not native 16bit content - it's interpolated from 8bits

There are PNG programs for lossless compression suggested in your other threads, but they shave off a few percent at most - they are also very slow because they use brute force methods

You can make a "lossy PNG" - as in degrade the image, smooth away some details,blur it a bit - then resave it as a PNG - it's pointless really - you might as well use a lossy image in the first place

What is the best software to convert png to jpg or webp?

There is no "best". Just pros/cons already discussed in your other threads, depending on what criteria you're using. Some options were mentioned, try some and see what is "Best" for your criteria

One more thing, how do I set the file size for png files to a certain amount?

You can't set the size exactly, because it's a lossless format . It uses whatever size is necessary to achieve lossless compression, given the current parameters.

[Jay123210599]

My audience are viewers from DeviantArt, so my only options for smaller file sizes are jpg and webp (trust me, you can upload them).

You can submit them, but it doesn't mean anyone will download an entire image sequence. (Someone might get tricked into it unknowingly )

If you're limiting your options to jpg and webp, then you have no choice. Use larger files, or suffer the low quality. Lossless webp is always lower in filesize than (lossless) PNG . Or live with some quality loss and use a jpeg. Lossy webp is ok for low quality images too . It's the high quality lossy webp that isn't very good

Or link to an archive download, like most people at DA use. A 3rd party host where you can download a higher quality, smaller filesize video directly - such as Google Drive . You bypass all DA restrictions . And nobody will want to download an image sequence, when you can have higher quality and /or smaller filesizes with video .

What should I do? How do I compress png files without lowering the color/bit depth?

Don't focus on bit depth, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality. If I lower it to 1bit then raise back to 8bit, the image will look severely degraded but still be fake "8bit" . Similarly if you start with 8bit image, then make it 16bit, you don't suddenly get much higher precision. It's not native 16bit content - it's interpolated from 8bits

There are PNG programs for lossless compression suggested in your other threads, but they shave off a few percent at most - they are also very slow because they use brute force methods

You can make a "lossy PNG" - as in degrade the image, smooth away some details,blur it a bit - then resave it as a PNG - it's pointless really - you might as well use a lossy image in the first place

What is the best software to convert png to jpg or webp?

There is no "best". Just pros/cons already discussed in your other threads, depending on what criteria you're using. Some options were mentioned, try some and see what is "Best" for your criteria

One more thing, how do I set the file size for png files to a certain amount?

You can't set the size exactly, because it's a lossless format . It uses whatever size is necessary to achieve lossless compression, given the current parameters.

All right, now all that's left to answer this question (note that jxl and lossless webp is excluded from the question).
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413152-Best-Visually-Lossless-File-for-Highest-Quality

Plus, there's an option to adjust the file size for webp files. What should I set it to?

[Attachment 76931 - Click to enlarge]

[Cornucopia]

https://www.deviantartsupport.com/en/article/what-file-types-can-i-submit-to-deviantart

I already referred to this previously. Sure seems to me that video is one of the options, and HEVCinMP4 is listed as supported, so you do have options for more compression.


Scott

[poisondeathray]

Plus, there's an option to adjust the file size for webp files. What should I set it to?

Never tried it. You can test it out and report your findings


And almost anything is uploadable to Google Drive, mega.nz .

People do this all the time on Deviant Art - not just for videos, but things in other categories such as 3d models, animation data - they put the link in the post

Post a few Jpeg, or PNG previews, post the link to the video uploaded to the 3rd party host

People will complain if you upload a large image sequence. You've been warned.

[Cornucopia]

That is one of the unique things about lossless compression: you can predict a range, but you cannot specify a bitrate/filesize. Because lossless codec will apply what prediction processes it has in its arsenal but it cannot account for the remaining unpredictable portion (the unique complexity/detail, the entropy, noise) - without which a file would be lossy - and that is different for every image/title.


Scott

[Jay123210599]

[QUOTE=poisondeathray;2723734]

Don't focus on bit depth, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality. If I lower it to 1bit then raise back to 8bit, the image will look severely degraded but still be fake "8bit" . Similarly if you start with 8bit image, then make it 16bit, you don't suddenly get much higher precision. It's not native 16bit content - it's interpolated from 8bits

So I make only 8bit (not 24bit) png files, put them in a pdf file and export them as 24bit images, it will slightly be lossy, or it will be lossless?

[Cornucopia]

It is always lossless COMPARED TO ITS INPUT, which in this case is either 8bit or 8bit-padded-to-24bit. Iow, the "loss" has already been burned into the image, which probably makes it more compressible, but the loss in quality is always there even when there isn't mathematical loss in the encode. Depending on the image, it may be noticable or not.


Scott

[Cornucopia]

Again, you have already be warned about putting the images in pdf containers.


Scott

[poisondeathray]

8bit total (3 R, 2G, 2B) will exhibit tremendous loss compared to original 24bit total (8bit Red, 8bit Green , 8bit Blue) - 8bit total would look like a low quality gif

If you then use lossless PDF (jpeg2000), it will be lossless compared to the 8bit total (ie. the garbage will be identical, it won't make it worse garbage)

[Jay123210599]

8bit total (3 R, 2G, 2B) will exhibit tremendous loss compared to original 24bit total (8bit Red, 8bit Green , 8bit Blue) - 8bit total would look like a low quality gif

If you then use lossless PDF (jpeg2000), it will be lossless compared to the 8bit total (ie. the garbage will be identical, it won't make it worse garbage)

Even if I export them as 24bit images (8R, 8G, 8B), it won't make it better?

By the way, I read on the internet that gif is lossless even though you say it's not. Is that really true? How do I make high quality gif files? Is this an example of one?

[Attachment 76932 - Click to enlarge]

[poisondeathray]

8bit total (3 R, 2G, 2B) will exhibit tremendous loss compared to original 24bit total (8bit Red, 8bit Green , 8bit Blue) - 8bit total would look like a low quality gif

If you then use lossless PDF (jpeg2000), it will be lossless compared to the 8bit total (ie. the garbage will be identical, it won't make it worse garbage)

Even if I export them as 24bit images (8R, 8G, 8B), it won't make it better?

No.

By the way, I read on the internet that gif is lossless even though you say it's not. Is that really true? How do I make high quality gif files? Is this an example of one?

[Attachment 76932 - Click to enlarge]

Gif is lossy if you start with 8bit per channel RGB (24bit total)

8bpc or 24bit total means 2^8 * 2^8 * 2^8 = 16.3 million possible color combinations

GIF only supports 256 total colors. Which number is bigger? 16.3 Million or 256 ?

That gif is very lossy. It uses dithering so there is a layer of "dots" and noise over the image - dithering an optical illusion, because with out it , the gif would look like a water painting with 256 colors. One side effect of the dithering is it makes the filesize larger - it's adding noise. Look closely - it's the lowest quality by far of any of the images posted of 00214.png - there are noisy dots everywhere

[Jay123210599]

8bit total (3 R, 2G, 2B) will exhibit tremendous loss compared to original 24bit total (8bit Red, 8bit Green , 8bit Blue) - 8bit total would look like a low quality gif

If you then use lossless PDF (jpeg2000), it will be lossless compared to the 8bit total (ie. the garbage will be identical, it won't make it worse garbage)

Even if I export them as 24bit images (8R, 8G, 8B), it won't make it better?

No.

Wait, it will improve the quality?

[poisondeathray]

Wait, it will improve the quality?

No