Issue 17678 - Jpeg export file size/quality
Summary: Jpeg export file size/quality
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 4499
Alias: None
Product: Draw
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 RC3
Hardware: PC All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: sven.jacobi
QA Contact: issues@graphics
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-07-31 01:09 UTC by Unknown
Modified: 2003-09-12 10:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Unknown 2003-07-31 01:09:20 UTC
I have been using Draw to work with photos (imported in jpeg format via clipboard).

When I export from Draw in jpeg, selecting 100% quality gives me much smaller
images than I am accustomed to from other applications (of order 1/10th the size!). 

Do these exports really have maximum quality or are they actually reduced
quality due to lossy compression?

Thanks
Dave
Comment 1 wolframgarten 2003-08-05 10:02:12 UTC
Please give me a hint with which other applications you are comparing.
Just to get you right: You insert a picture in jpg format from another
application using the clipcoard, manipulate it and then export it as a
new jpg? And then it has a different size compared to a picture
manipulated the same way in a different application? 
Have you tried to open the jpg file using "file open" or "insert
graphics"? Thanks in advance.
Comment 2 Unknown 2003-08-11 05:35:36 UTC
Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the delay in my reply -- I've been
away on vacation.

I did some further experiments and found that the JPEG converter in
OpenOfficeDraw is actually about in the middle (my original concern
must have been the peculiar characteristics of that photo). I tested
it against a couple of freeware programs (IrfanView and Xnview) and
against Corel PhotoPaint10. I started with a 2.1 MB photo (as jpeg'ed
by the camera) and saved it in all cases using the "best" quality
setting. The results were:

OOdraw  3.0 MB
Irfanview  2.7 MB
Xnview  2.7 MB
CorelPhotoPaint  4.2 MB

It is hard to say if there is any significant quality difference
without some objective measure.

On a related issue, I note that when I save the same photo in PDF
using the OpenOffice pdf exporter the file size is only 684K; using
Acrobat to make the pdf gives a file size of 1.3M (both set on
"press"). Does the 684K pdf file actually have the same quality as the
3MB jpeg files?

You can mark this issue as closed -- sorry that it was a false alarm.
Comment 3 wolframgarten 2003-08-11 08:31:34 UTC
->Reassigned to Sven.
Hello Sven, do you have any additional thoughts to the last point? Thanks!
Comment 4 smerkley 2003-09-05 01:55:57 UTC
I believe that this is an issue that could be improved upon, so I am
setting the status to NEW.
   After some testing I found that while the resolution when exporting
to jpeg might be ok, it's not real good.  I think that allowing the
user to set an actual resolution for the image to be saved with would
help a lot, I have also noticed that if I save as a html file that it
gives me the option of saving my image as a jpeg and then gives me
three different resolutions to choose from.  This seems to me like a
better jpeg export than the plain jpeg export tool.  However I still
think that OpenOffice should support higher resolutions, for instance,
Corel photo paint can go up to a resolution of 30,000 x 30,000 pixels,
this is absolutely huge, but why not allow it?.  Why not support real
high resolutions for those that want it?
Comment 5 smerkley 2003-09-05 12:50:57 UTC
  I've done a little more testing and found that I can make the page
size bigger, and then when I export to JPEG, it has a higher
resolution, I assume this means that it is being encoded at a specific
DPI of the original document, so maybe we just a thing to increases
the DPI it's encoding at, although I still think you ought to be able
to just set a total resolution i.e. 1024 x 768 as well.  Basicly we'll
be giving the user a lot more control over the export.
Comment 6 sven.jacobi 2003-09-08 11:28:52 UTC
marked as duplicate to #i4499#

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 4499 ***
Comment 7 sven.jacobi 2003-09-12 10:54:30 UTC
I closed this issue because of duplicity.