When viewing image, the image shows big pixels

[guidorobben]

I have a lot of images which XV shows with a lot of big pixels. If I view the same Image in Paint.net it looks better.

I can send the image by mail or something. The image is 3mb big.


Regards,

Guido Robben

XV: 1.82.4

[guidorobben]

It's a JPEG TrueColor (v1.1) image

:
Camera Manufacturer : Noritsu Koki
Camera Model : QSS
Orientation : top-left (1)
YCbCr Coefficients : 299/1000
YCbCr Positioning : centered (1)
:
EXIF version : 02.10
Date taken : : : : :
Date digitized : : : : :
Colour space : sRGB
EXIF image width : 3047
EXIF image length : 2048
Interoperability offset : 253
:
Image width : 160
Image length : 120
Compression : 6
Thumbnail length : 15804
YCbCr Coefficients : 299/1000
YCbCr SubSampling : 1
YCbCr Positioning : co-sited (2)
Thumbnail offset : 426


Guido

[XnTriq]

Hi!

What are your settings in Options » View » Auto Image Size?
How about changing it to No fit?

[guidorobben]

Doesn't work

Guido

[XnTriq]

My guess would be that you have the "Use Embedded thumbnail" option on. Go to "Options / Browser / Thumbnail" and uncheck the "Use Embedded thumbnail", if it is checked.

If that didn't help, it's probably a cache problem. In this case you can try to disable the cache in "Options / Browser / Cache" and see if it works. If it does, I recommend that you delete the whole cache.

[guidorobben]

My guess would be that you have the "Use Embedded thumbnail" option on. Go to "Options / Browser / Thumbnail" and uncheck the "Use Embedded thumbnail", if it is checked.

If that didn't help, it's probably a cache problem. In this case you can try to disable the cache in "Options / Browser / Cache" and see if it works. If it does, I recommend that you delete the whole cache.

Both options do not work. I could send you the file so you could see for yourself.

Guido

[XnTriq]

Guido,

I was able to find some photos that have apparently been shot with the same camera model as yours.

Code: Select all

                                 :                                 
Camera Manufacturer              : Noritsu Koki                    
Camera Model                     : QSS                             
Orientation                      : top-left (1)                    
YCbCr Coefficients               : 299/1000                        
YCbCr Positioning                : centered (1)                    
                                 :                                 
EXIF version                     : 02.10                           
Date taken                       :     :  :     :  :               
Date digitized                   :     :  :     :  :               
Colour space                     : sRGB                            
EXIF image width                 : 3090                            
EXIF image length                : 2048                            
Interoperability offset          : 253                             
                                 :                                 
Image width                      : 160                             
Image length                     : 120                             
Compression                      : 6                               
Thumbnail length                 : 20616                           
YCbCr Coefficients               : 299/1000                        
YCbCr SubSampling                : 1                               
YCbCr Positioning                : co-sited (2)                    
Thumbnail offset                 : 426                             

Viewing these images on my Windows 2000 machine with XnView 1.82.4 works fine.

Please do a capture of your installation of XnView in View mode, upload the screenshot to a free image hosting service (like ImageShack.us, Photobucket.com, TinyPic.com etc.) and post it here, so everyone can have a look.

[guidorobben]

Here it is

http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=photolt8.jpg

[XnTriq]

Thanks for sending me the 3MB file.

I was able to find some photos that have apparently been shot with the same camera model as yours.

Pardon my ignorance.
Stupid me just learned about Noritsu Koki's QSS Digital Minilab Systems.

I opened your photo with these programs:

• Photoshop 6.0.1
• Photo-Paint 11.633
• Paint Shop Pro 9.01
• ThumbsPlus 7.0
• XnView 1.82.4
• IrfanView 3.98
• Internet Explorer 6 SP1
• Firefox 1.5.0.4

All of them displayed it just about the same:

• 
  [ Zoom ]

Because I'm still on Windows 2K w/o .NET Framework, I can't do any testing with Paint.NET myself.

Anywho, I believe we're dealing with grain aliasing — a combination of film grain and so-called “ISO/Sensor/CCD noise”.
Maybe a bunch of links I posted in January are of interest to you.

[Clo]

—> guidorobben

Hello !

• Your picture is displayed OK here with 1.82.4 under Win XP-Pro.

- The thumb-nail view is correct too (I don't use the embedded thumb-nail)

• However, from the "Properties", I don't get any EXIF info, the EXIF tab is missing…

• Same with an image from the XnTriq's link…

Kind regards,
Claude
Clo

[guidorobben]

I thank you guys for all the help you give me. But what do all the answers mean? Do I have a setting wrong? Is the image not correct? Is this a bug?

Guido

[XnTriq]

Hello Guido!

I thank you guys for all the help you give me. But what do all the answers mean? Do I have a setting wrong? Is the image not correct? Is this a bug?

First of all, let me assure you that this is definitely not a problem that's related to XnView, because the “speckles” in your photo are visible in all of the graphics programs I use.
Form what I understand these kinds of distortions can stem from a number of causes, and in this particular case it's probably a combination of more than one:

• Film grain (analogue cameras)
• CCD noise (digital cameras & scanners)
• JPEG compression artifacts

As you probably know, images taken with digital cameras usually have Exif metadata embedded in them, which contains information about the camera's manufacturer and the model etc.

Camera Manufacturer : Noritsu Koki
Camera Model : QSS

Alas, it took me a while to realize that Noritsu doesn't manufacture cameras but minilabs.

Am I correct that you shoot photos with a film-based (analogue) camera and take the film to a photo kiosk where it's processed, scanned and burned on CD?

[guidorobben]

Am I correct that you shoot photos with a film-based (analogue) camera and take the film to a photo kiosk where it's processed, scanned and burned on CD?

That's correct.

I think the film was kodak 200 ISO

Guido

[helmut]

Am I correct that you shoot photos with a film-based (analogue) camera and take the film to a photo kiosk where it's processed, scanned and burned on CD?

That's correct.

I think the film was kodak 200 ISO

First off, thank you XnTriq for your excellent and informative answers!

Looking at the sample screenshot available at Image Shack I'm pretty sure that the problem is not a display problem of XnView or JPG artefacts.
Nowadays, 200 ISO films should be pretty fine grained, but I'm also pretty sure that the problem lies in the analogue film.

[XnTriq]

Looking at the sample screenshot available at Image Shack I'm pretty sure that the problem is not a display problem of XnView or JPG artefacts.
Nowadays, 200 ISO films should be pretty fine grained, but I'm also pretty sure that the problem lies in the analogue film.

Helmut

Phew, I'm glad you agree.
Thanks for backing me up!

Am I correct that you shoot photos with a film-based (analogue) camera and take the film to a photo kiosk where it's processed, scanned and burned on CD?

That's correct.

I think the film was kodak 200 ISO

Guido

Okay, this is very important to know.

You've got two options now: either enhance the Noritsu-scanned photos with special software filters, or take the film(s)/slides to a better scanning service.

Sorry for all those quotes and links, but I believe you're better off if I refer you to experts rather than just spouting my opinion.

If it's of any interest, here is a 100% crop from a Noritsu QSS-2901 scan in an independent local lab. Scan is from a Fuji Superia Xtra 800 film. The full scan is a 6 Mb JPEG 3090x2048 'DirectClass 8-bit' file.

[ 00BqX7-22858784.jpg ]

However, the main problem here is relying on low quality, mini-lab based scanning that's designed for quantity, and not quality. At first I thought there were Frontier photos because of the artificial mesh like grain pattern, but I see the Noritsu has the same problem.

The solution (in increasing order of common sense and quality)is to either get really good at using a dedicated noise remover like Neat Image, get your own scanner and stop relying on cheap lab scans, or get a dSLR.

I doubt it. Quality scans at resolutions significantly higher than 1.5 MP are expensive, and the 1.5MP scans are so cheap as to be almost free (the automated commercial printers generated them as a side effect of producing a 4x6 print, as I understand it).

Even worse, ISO 200 and higher consumer color print film is horrendously bad stuff and doesn't support scans much above 1.5MP (look up "grain aliasing" and notice that it's the ISO 200 consumer films that have the problem). If you want decent scans from 35mm, you need to use quality film, such as Reala, Provia 100F, the (relatively new) Fuji ISO 160 professional color negative films, or the like.

Sorry to digress, but my experience is different.

A couple of years ago I bought a Canon T90 in eBay. It came with a Tokina 28-70 SD lens and I put a roll of film to test it. The film was a consumer grade Fuji 200 that was around the home for some time, BTW this is a quite hot area (southern Spain).

I developed it in a local chain store (El Corte Inglés, one hour minilab) and they were offering negative scanning at "high quality" for 0.3 euro per frame. They came as 5035 x 3339 JPG (around 16Mpixel). A lot of grain as is to be expected but surpisingly few compression artifacts. Exif data identifies the equipment as Noritsu Koki QSS-32_33.

I made some very informal subjective tests to estimate the real amount of information in the image simply reducing the image in Photoshop until some fine detail in the image is not visible anymore.

For this film my estimation is that it starts loosing detail when reduced below 8Mpixel, please note that those images were handheld snapshots with an old cheap zoom and no attempt to obtain maximum sharpness.

I jus remade the tests with another frame shoot in Kodak Portra 400VC (Canon T90, FDn 20mm, handheld), developed by myself in Tetenal chemistry and scanned in the same place. For this particular frame you start loosing detail (ability to discriminate between two almost parallel cables) when reducing below 12 MPix although there is a lot of grain.

BTW I own a Canon negative scanner (FS2710, 2720dpi) and its scans fare a lot worse at full resolution than the equivalently reduced Noritsu ones.

Regarding grain aliasing and its ugly effects I understand that it is produced by the combination of a particular size of grain and some specific scanning resolution. In fact I had scanned in the same place some slide film (Provia 100F, Velvia 50) and the scans do not look as good (i.e. no better that what my Canon scanner does). A to do thing is to scan there a low ISO negative film to find what happens.

Regards.

• Photoscientia: Film grain and Aliasing
• Tony Sleep Photography: Bits, noise & problems...
• Michael Almond Photography: Noise Reduction Tool Comparison
• Jasc/Corel: Paint Shop Pro
  • Remove Digital Camera Noise
• Adobe: Photoshop Elements
  • Reducing noise and JPEG artifacts
• ABSoft: Neat Image
  • Filtration examples
• FixerLabs: NoiseFixer
  • NoiseFixer in Action
• Fred Miranda: ISOx Pro
  • Full description and samples
• Imagenomic: Noiseware
  • Samples
• Kodak's Austin Development Center: digital GEM
  • Sample Images
• Nik Software: Dfine
  • Samples
• PictureCode: Noise Ninja
  • Before-and-after examples
• RKD Photography: SmarterNR
  • Other Samples
• STOIK Imaging: Noise AutoFix
  • Samples
• Visual Infinity: Grain Surgery
  • Samples