OT: Bad quality screenshots with FRAPS...

01-10-07, 02:14 AM

I have a little problem with Fraps. It seems to save JPGs in a very bad quality. Especially night shots are very bad. Here is an example (Take a closer look at the water):

How do you save your screens? I choosed FRAPS and JPG for me because I sometimes make hundrets of screens at a long Patrol. BMPs may have better quality, but are also very big (~3MB in SH3)

Is my main mistake to save screens as JPG? Whats with PNG, better quality?

Graphical stuff isnt my territory

Firebird · 01-10-07, 02:29 AM

PNG uses lossless compression, which means that the image will be compressed but no information (~quality) will be lost

. JPG compresses the image even more, but you'll lose some quality. BMP just saves every pixel without compression, which results in a huge file.

I recommend PNG to save screenshots in, since you can always save them in another format later. The filesize depends on many factors, but my average size for 268 PNG screenshots is 0.45 MB, that's pretty doable imo - give it a try!

01-10-07, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebird

PNG uses lossless compression, which means that the image will be compressed but no information (~quality) will be lost

. JPG compresses the image even more, but you'll lose some quality. BMP just saves every pixel without compression, which results in a huge file.

I recommend PNG to save screenshots in, since you can always save them in another format later. The filesize depends on many factors, but my average size for 268 PNG screenshots is 0.45 MB, that's pretty doable imo - give it a try!

Will di, thank you!

Ah, a last question. If im using PNG and convert the file to jpg later... will there be a quality loss again?

Firebird · 01-10-07, 02:58 AM

Yes, you'll lose quality when converting to JPG (as opposed to PNG). Some image editors allow you to specify what quality to use (for example, 0-100) so you have some control over how much is lost.

I can open a random ~600 KB PNG screenshot and save it as a JPG using quality setting 100 => results in a 385 KB JPG and I don't really see any differences in this one (they're there, though

) or I can save it with quality 85 (the default in the program I use) => results in a 90 KB JPG and looks ok, but with a noticeable difference.

01-10-07, 03:02 AM

Ok thank you!

Gizzmoe · 01-10-07, 03:16 AM

Please don´t post PNG´s. The filesize difference between a PNG and JPG saved at 85-90% quality is huge, the quality loss is negligible.

horrgakx · 01-10-07, 03:55 AM

I agree about not using PNG. JPG is FINE - I'm not sure if FRAPS allows you to change the compression level but you should be able to get a good looking and small JPG file, all mine are around 45k-60k.

stabiz · 01-10-07, 08:25 AM

All my pics are jpegs from fraps, but I never noticed any low quality?

_Seth_ · 01-10-07, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stabiz

All my pics are jpegs from fraps, but I never noticed any low quality?

I agree, i havent seen anything different in quality between .png & .jpeg.. Maybe i need glasses or something...:hmm: Maybe the difference isnt in the visibility, but in the resolution (.png' s can maybe be zoomed more without loosing quality...i dont know...)

Firebird · 01-10-07, 08:48 AM

Meh, I agree you can't always see the difference - it really depends on the picture and it's especially bad for 'simple' pictures (large areas with the exact same colour) as it was designed with photographs in mind. Just saying what's technically different... you can also find some good information here. I personally use JPG when putting a picture online because it's small, but it's nice to know that your stored files are perfect, and with storage capacity these days it's not a big issue

.

I don't know if JPG is the cause of the 'bad quality' in the picture above, but at a little over 19 KB there's not much data in there. Is there any chance you can do it over with a different format NippelSpanner?

Cheapshot · 01-10-07, 09:25 AM

I use FSScreen to take the shot, then resize resize from 16x12 to 8x6 (because of my photohost limits) and convert the 'bmp's to 'jpg's with The Gimp.

I end up with fairly small files that still retain their quality.

Firebird · 01-10-07, 10:23 AM

Only it doesn't compare to the circumstances in this pic at all:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I tried converting a night shot myself, check
- the png
- the jpg

and dare tell me there's no noticeable difference, especially in the sky (which just happens to be a large area with the same colour)

Whether or not the same is going on with Nippelspanner's screenie, I don't know. It might as well be a FRAPS configuration option which has JPGs set to a lower quality than usual.

Gizzmoe · 01-10-07, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebird

I tried converting a night shot myself, check
- the png
- the jpg

and dare tell me there's no noticeable difference, especially in the sky (which just happens to be a large area with the same colour)

You used a relatively low quality setting, that´s why there are so many artifacts. I´ve converted the png to jpg (90% quality) with Irfanview and it looks much better. Even if you use 95% it is still 2.5x smaller than the png.

Firebird · 01-10-07, 11:26 AM

For the record, I used a program that doesn't offer a quality setting so I don't know what it was.

As I understand it you're trying to prove to me that it's not worth saving in .png because with 90 to 95% quality you get a smaller file anyway with basically the same image. I knew that already, and saving them as PNG is a personal preference as I indicated earlier. I like having 100%. There's no need to convince me, I'm well aware of the file size differences, k?

This thread is about NippelSpanner's FRAPS problem, so I'm trying to duplicate the circumstances. Someone posted two JPGs that were imo irrelevant, I posted a night pic at - I suppose - standard quality which clearly shows artifacts. I therefore concluded my last post with the question of whether the problem couldn't just be caused by a quality setting in FRAPS.

Gizzmoe · 01-10-07, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebird

I knew that already, and saving them as PNG is a personal preference as I indicated earlier. I like having 100%. There's no need to convince me, I'm well aware of the file size differences, k?

Ok. But like I said, if you wanna post an image here use JPG.

01-10-07, 02:14 AM	#1
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	OT: Bad quality screenshots with FRAPS... I have a little problem with Fraps. It seems to save JPGs in a very bad quality. Especially night shots are very bad. Here is an example (Take a closer look at the water): How do you save your screens? I choosed FRAPS and JPG for me because I sometimes make hundrets of screens at a long Patrol. BMPs may have better quality, but are also very big (~3MB in SH3) Is my main mistake to save screens as JPG? Whats with PNG, better quality? Graphical stuff isnt my territory

01-10-07, 08:25 AM	#8
stabiz Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 4,224 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	All my pics are jpegs from fraps, but I never noticed any low quality? __________________

01-10-07, 08:48 AM	#10
Firebird Torpedoman Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 111 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	Meh, I agree you can't always see the difference - it really depends on the picture and it's especially bad for 'simple' pictures (large areas with the exact same colour) as it was designed with photographs in mind. Just saying what's technically different... you can also find some good information here. I personally use JPG when putting a picture online because it's small, but it's nice to know that your stored files are perfect, and with storage capacity these days it's not a big issue . I don't know if JPG is the cause of the 'bad quality' in the picture above, but at a little over 19 KB there's not much data in there. Is there any chance you can do it over with a different format NippelSpanner? Last edited by Firebird; 01-10-07 at 09:06 AM.

01-10-07, 09:25 AM	#11
Cheapshot Watch Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 24 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	I use FSScreen to take the shot, then resize resize from 16x12 to 8x6 (because of my photohost limits) and convert the 'bmp's to 'jpg's with The Gimp. I end up with fairly small files that still retain their quality. __________________ When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle.... It makes the neighbor's dog run to the end of his chain and gag himself.

01-10-07, 02:29 AM	#2
Firebird Torpedoman Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 111 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	PNG uses lossless compression, which means that the image will be compressed but no information (~quality) will be lost . JPG compresses the image even more, but you'll lose some quality. BMP just saves every pixel without compression, which results in a huge file. I recommend PNG to save screenshots in, since you can always save them in another format later. The filesize depends on many factors, but my average size for 268 PNG screenshots is 0.45 MB, that's pretty doable imo - give it a try!

01-10-07, 02:58 AM	#4
Firebird Torpedoman Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 111 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	Yes, you'll lose quality when converting to JPG (as opposed to PNG). Some image editors allow you to specify what quality to use (for example, 0-100) so you have some control over how much is lost. I can open a random ~600 KB PNG screenshot and save it as a JPG using quality setting 100 => results in a 385 KB JPG and I don't really see any differences in this one (they're there, though ) or I can save it with quality 85 (the default in the program I use) => results in a 90 KB JPG and looks ok, but with a noticeable difference.

01-10-07, 03:02 AM	#5
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Ok thank you!

01-10-07, 03:16 AM	#6
Gizzmoe Silent Hunter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 3,668 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Please don´t post PNG´s. The filesize difference between a PNG and JPG saved at 85-90% quality is huge, the quality loss is negligible.

01-10-07, 03:55 AM	#7
horrgakx Ensign Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 230 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I agree about not using PNG. JPG is FINE - I'm not sure if FRAPS allows you to change the compression level but you should be able to get a good looking and small JPG file, all mine are around 45k-60k.

01-10-07, 11:26 AM	#14
Firebird Torpedoman Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 111 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	For the record, I used a program that doesn't offer a quality setting so I don't know what it was. As I understand it you're trying to prove to me that it's not worth saving in .png because with 90 to 95% quality you get a smaller file anyway with basically the same image. I knew that already, and saving them as PNG is a personal preference as I indicated earlier. I like having 100%. There's no need to convince me, I'm well aware of the file size differences, k? This thread is about NippelSpanner's FRAPS problem, so I'm trying to duplicate the circumstances. Someone posted two JPGs that were imo irrelevant, I posted a night pic at - I suppose - standard quality which clearly shows artifacts. I therefore concluded my last post with the question of whether the problem couldn't just be caused by a quality setting in FRAPS.