When i upload my pictures here in renderosit i lose so mutch scharpness and brightness.. they become a bit dull..

I render and save in BMP and then when i upload i change it in JPG with Paintshop, quality 100%

Is there a better way or different format in wich i can upload?

100% quality uses up too much memory I use 85 50 95% depending on what it is, at 100% you're as well to use a PNG :)

sorry don't see that problem myself, maybe my eyes/monitor ain't so good though.

I created a thread some days ago precisely on the same topic. I notice exactly the same that you do and I asked if others did too. I got one positive reply only at the time. It's comforting to know there are others. :-) But puzzling that we are so few... :-|

For example, in the Cornucopia galleries it's completely different. The images are sharp there, so I know it's not my system. It's really strange that there are so few people complaining about this in Renderosity.

I sent a sitemail to agiel some weeks ago about this but never got any reply.

I save the pictures in BMP and convert to JPG with either Photo Paint or Gimp.  So far I haven't noticed anything bad but maybe like SB33 my eyes are going (or gone).  I did notice that if you convert from Vue JPG to another JPG you do lose sharpness.  But not from BMP.   ?????

Why not just render to JPG instead of BMP?

Quote - "Why not just render to JPG instead of BMP?"

Because then you lose quality at the source, due to compression. If you save to BMP, and you convert to JPG to fit to whatever file size restrictions some site has, you can always go back to your BMP and convert to different file sizes. If you save directly to JPG, the quality is lost at the source and there's no way to get it back.

Again, I don't think that this loss of quality noticeable in Renderosity galleries has nothing to do with the way an image is converted in Vue or PS or whatever. The exact same image posted in Renderosity or in Cornucopia3D looks completely different. In C3D it looks much sharper.

I am always amazed to read about compression in jpgs. This is not necessarily the case. Part of my job as graphic designer is to use images that i have to buy from professional image libraries. Or use images from libraries of clients (HP for example). Surprisingly they ALL come as jpgs - without ANY compression but very compact in terms of file size. We print them up to A0 (more than a meter high or wide) or use them in brochures. No problem at all. So this is not necessarily a problem of using the file format but of the options that people select.

Wabe,
well, large photogrpahs aren't so worried about that problem ;)
3000x2000 image, say, has tons more detail, but most renders are about 1024x768

In general you should NEVER save originals as jpgs, jpg is a lossey format, hence it must never be used for fine detail bumpmaps at less than 95%, have a good look at the jpg artifiacts that will show through if you do.... learned that in Bryce a long time ago.

When I saw a render I save it THREE times, tif, bmp, and psd. That way if there's any accidents, like accidentally saving over anoriginal, I have back ups!
Only a few megs of space, no concern versus saving over an original....
:)

In general I doubt this is true. jpg is not per se a problematic format - otherwise professional image libraries would not use it. Full stop. That it is is just a myth in my eyes.

But back to the original question. Maybe the method Renderosity has to prepare uploaded images to their galleries uses some not ideal processes. So that the quality suffers. If so, I would write a note to the site admins and mention that - to see what they will have to say. BUT, this would affect all formats that are used originally.

Quote - "Maybe the method Renderosity has to prepare uploaded images to their galleries uses some not ideal processes. So that the quality suffers. If so, I would write a note to the site admins and mention that - to see what they will have to say."

Wabe, this is exactly what I think. And it's what I did, like I said in a post above. I already sitemailed agiel but I had no reply.

Wabe,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact
You really will notice it with fine detail bump maps :)

Every time , every time, a jpg is saved, it loses quality.
Now, in a publishing house I'd suspect they are saved at 100%, but it sitll loses quality with each save...

Now, you won't notice that on most photos, provided the original negative/resolution was high, and further savings didn't lower the compression ratio <100%

That's why originals are supposed to be always saved as tif or tga or psd or any other lossless format

Dead easy to see: make a large greyscale image for a terrain. save it a sa tif.
Now, save it as a jpg at 100%
then another copy at 80%. and another at 60%

Apply them as terrian heights, terrian heights show up fine detail best.
multiple saves and/or lower quality compression formats soon start showing up the blotchy, squares of jpg compression artifacts, which is terrible for bump/height maps especially.

:)

Hey SB33, I think a better test would be to save it as a JPG at 100% and then copy also at 100% and then again and again etc.  As you go further down the line quality will began to lessen and you will began to see it as obvious.    The reason Wabe doesn't see this is because he makes one copy from the master and uses it then.  The loss rate on JPG at 100%  (ie: no compression)  is slight so that unless you save at lower rates and then load again, you might never notice right away.   When we download to Rendo you have to compress if you have a larger picture so as to  make the memory limits.  I think this may be the difference.  I dunno though I've never downloaded to Cornucopia.   The difference indeed may be in how they store and present.

From Wabe's point of view he's right, there's no problem.  He might never notice any loss.  When I download to Rendo I haven't noticed anything even though I'm compressing anywhere from 4 to 8 percent.  (based on picture size of 1280X1024).   But I'm looking for it now.

I've run across a JPG once that had been round the houses so many times that any attempt to manipulate the copy I'd been sent resulted in a pattern of red dots appearing across the image.  Unfortunately the originals had been lost, scanning early prints failed because they'd been double sided with text that came through and all the existing copies were so far down the path of deterioration that they were on their way to getting chicken pox too.  The only solution in the end was to commission a new picture and a rejig of the brand involved to fit including printing new materials which cost a lot more than a couple of CD back ups of the original Tiff would have.