Jpg and bmp

[Carl2]

  I've been using Paint shop Pro to do graphic work in Hal for ages.  I'd heard that the jpg format wasn't a very good compression format.  If you open the standard Jpg that are uncompressed I'm sure you'll agree with what I'm saying.  I've found that I can use a 2048 resolution to increase the detail, I just open a bodyskin and looked at it and can say that is not what I had when I clicked the Save in Paint.   This is why I belive jpg is not that good.  Today I wanted to do some work on a picture, I opened paint and one of the standard Pics I use, I click Save a copy as and save it as a bmp rather than the jpg.  I close the jpg and open the bmp and make changes then save it.  I use the Hapregestry to open the character, I drag and drop the bmp and It's displayed on the character,  The face is all skin, The mouth is located on a shoulder, the Hair is on the arms, ect. I just did a search and could not find anything on this.  It seems the loaction of body parts has changed when using bmp.
Carl2

[sybershot]

I never knew a bitmap could be used, nice find. Kinda stinks though that the locations get messed up, but that could be fixed with time and effort 

[Duskrider]

Flip the BMP horizontally, see if that works.

[Carl2]

  I've just about got it, Rough at this point but I've got just about everything in.  Got most of the eye and teeth,
it kind of falls into place if you try the 16 squares.
Duskrider,
  Just compared them, it's the left and right, they are interchanged.  Okay I put it in PSP, and use the mirror and save.  It works now that I can see the difference I know what to do,  which is flipping it as you said.
Carl2

[Art]

I think one of the main reasons people used the .JPG format over the .BMP was because of the difference in file size.
BMP files are huge by comparison. I guess it all comes down to 'Looks' vs 'File Size'.

I loaded a photo I'd taken a few months back into GIMP 2 and noted the file size.
I then saved it as both a .JPG and a .BMP file.

The results are shown here: Yes, the .JPG was 625,000 bytes and the .BMP of the same image was 6,562,000 bytes...yes, over 6 million bytes! Over 10 times larger!! Oh yes...there was NO discernible difference between the two images at all!!

Just something to think about....

[Carl2]

Art,
  Got to agree with you Art,  I'm thinking most cameras I know of use the jpg format.  The thing is if I open up a htr and look at the jpg it seems to like to make boxes of from a group of pixles.  I can open a jpg that I put some detail into and when I reopen it the detail is gone.  Haptek put this together when we had a 500 mb HD and a telephone modem and the htr was to be sent over the internet.
  I'm in the process of changing my bodyskins to bmp,  I'm using 2048 x by 2048 which is the largest I can use.  It's kind of like hal's reply making changes,  I'll have to try it and see if it's useful.
Carl2

[freddy888]

Carl, usually photo editing programs have a built in feature whereby you can choose the size of jpeg compression.

Often they default to something like 75-80% quality.  But if you want detail then you can push that to 100% and still have the compression benefit.

[Carl2]

Freddy,
  Thanks, I found the compression for jpeg, mine is set at 20

"The compression action reduces the file size by deleting image information. This means that as you increase the compression, you lower the quality of the image."
 
Strong statement, to get the best image you don't compress.  I'm only set at 20 and the fingernails look pretty bad ( zoom of 240 ).  A setting of 20 reduces the file size by .052  changing the 20 to 1 the file size is reduced by .178,  Okay as you said you still have compression and the quality is increased.  Useful bit of info.
Carl2

[Art]

Thank you Freddy...you took the words from my ...uh...Fingers!! Heh!!;)

@ Carl2, You'll also see a definite correlation or tradeoff between Quality and Memory size!
(and they say size doesn't matter!) - Sure it does!! Depending on what your intentions happen to be.

[freddy888]

No problem    Art can correct me but I think even if you went for the lowest level of compression (and thus higher quality) the resulting image size will still be lower than that of a BMP.

I remember trying this a long time ago too - BMPs were nice but at that time (this is seven years ago) I saw performance issues and 2048x2048 would sometimes not even load.  Nowadays though I bet that is negligible.

Try comparing the highest quality jpg with BMP though...just to see.

[Carl2]

Freddy,
  Thanks,  I'm using PSP (ver 9) it handles just about everything I should check a few, Not sure what Haptek will accept. 
Carl2