Jump to content

[REQ] Progressive JPEG saving support

Recommended Posts

It would be nice if support for saving progressive JPEGs

was added. Progressive JPEGs are nice for webpages on slow connections,

as they get gradually sharper wen being loaded. On top of that,.

they are usually a tad smaller than normal (baseline) JPEGs

And while we're at it ... it would also be nice if the subsampling factor

could be chosen in the "Save as JPEG" Dialog.

Right now the JPEG export is quite basic, as only the quality (0-100)

could be selected. These two improvements would make it MUCH nicer ;)

Best regards,


  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terribly sorry for the ignorance, you seemed to have unfortunately and regretfully 'slipped through the net', so to speak.

I'm primarily a PNG user, very rarely resorting to saving in JPEG - I use the BMP format for my desktop wallpapers nowadays. I have no comments regarding your request, I just didn't want to see you further neglected.

Hang in there, dangermouse, people will come around soon! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know were you are from dangermouse and I don't knwo much about these settings but the one were the picture increases in quality will satisfy me because I live in South Africa and the average internet connection is 384kbps (yes we do actually have internet in Africa dont look so amazed).

Bottom line is that I agree. :)

"Confusion is the welcome mat at the door of creativity." -Michaul Gelb

My Gallery Check it out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have added a screenshot of The GIMP's Save as JPEG dialogue.

There you can see the options for saving Jpegs as progressive

and for selecting the subsampling factor.

I think these would make *really* nice and overdue additions

to Paint-NET's JPEG export.

here is some additional Info on progressive JPEGs:

Note: There is an additional benefit not mentioned the following explanation:

As I said above, progressive JPEGs usually have a slightly smaller filesize

with identical quality when compared to "normal" JPEGs.


A simple or "baseline" JPEG file is stored as one top-to-bottom scan of the

image. Progressive JPEG divides the file into a series of scans. The first

scan shows the image at the equivalent of a very low quality setting, and

therefore it takes very little space. Following scans gradually improve the

quality. Each scan adds to the data already provided, so that the total

storage requirement is roughly the same as for a baseline JPEG image of the

same quality as the final scan. (Basically, progressive JPEG is just a

rearrangement of the same data into a more complicated order.)

The advantage of progressive JPEG is that if an image is being viewed

on-the-fly as it is transmitted, one can see an approximation to the whole

image very quickly, with gradual improvement of quality as one waits longer;

this is much nicer than a slow top-to-bottom display of the image. The

disadvantage is that each scan takes about the same amount of computation to

display as a whole baseline JPEG file would. So progressive JPEG only makes

sense if one has a decoder that's fast compared to the communication link.

(If the data arrives quickly, a progressive-JPEG decoder can adapt by

skipping some display passes. Hence, those of you fortunate enough to have

T1 or faster net links may not see any difference between progressive and

regular JPEG; but on a modem-speed link, progressive JPEG is great.)

Except for the ability to provide progressive display, progressive JPEG and

baseline JPEG are basically identical, and they work well on the same kinds

of images. It is possible to convert between baseline and progressive

representations of an image without any quality loss. (But specialized

software is needed to do this; conversion by decompressing and recompressing

is *not* lossless, due to roundoff errors.)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else, subsampling would be a charm. Before switching to BMP, I realised quickly that the highest subsampling of The GIMP's JPEGs were of a much higher quality than Paint.NET's. Whether my imagination or otherwise, I do not know, the fact is, it would be an excellent addition.

I can also see the benefits of a progressive JPEG option, and it equally would make an excellent compliment to PDN's array of file formats and options. I personally cannot speak on behalf of Rick, the lead developer, on the matter for numerous reasons, so I won't.

If nobody else has, I second dangermouse's motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 10 years later...

Thread has been dead for eleven years. If you wish to restart a conversation, please start a new thread rather then reviving something this old. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...