XnView Software

Hello.
Thanks for reading my topic.
When saving or converting images for JPG has an compression level value from 0 to 100.
What is the value for good and very good quality ?
Have value for only compression without losing quality ?

Have an nice day.

This is a common question. Take a look here: https://tinyurl.com/bdheym83

That means XnView not use an own jpg compression value, but use an value default used between others softwares ?

In my experience, the maximum compression (lowest Q value) that can be used depends not only on the nature of the image and the acceptable perceptible loss of image quality for the way the images will be used, but also on the pixel dimensions of the image: in general, images with large pixel dimensions can be compressed satisfactorily with lower quality values.

Xnview default value 85 is more or less very good or good quality ?

Augusto wrote: Fri Sep 19, 2025 9:39 pm Xnview default value 85 is more or less very good or good quality ?

It is very, very good. Please read the article from Sirv at the top of the search results that compares 80 and 90.

Augusto wrote: Fri Sep 19, 2025 9:39 pm Xnview default value 85 is more or less very good or good quality ?

It should be suitable for most purposes, often a lower value may also produce an acceptable resulting image: it does depend on the image to be compressed and the resulting quality actually needed in the particular case. Minimising image file size is more of an issue when many images are to be saved as in an archive.

jkm wrote: Fri Sep 19, 2025 9:45 pm

Augusto wrote: Fri Sep 19, 2025 9:39 pm Xnview default value 85 is more or less very good or good quality ?

It is very, very good. Please read the article from Sirv at the top of the search results that compares 80 and 90.

@jkm: A link to a search may produce different results when run again, particularly when possibly run in a different country. Here is a direct link to sirv's article: sirv's article.

@jkm: Apologies, the way you have done it was valid...

I'm aware. The language used also affects order and results. And whatever articles appear at the top of the search results will also very likely be relevant and informative to such a general question. Perusing search results builds character, educates, and saves everyone else time, so it should be encouraged. It is also more efficient and effective for the OP, as he would have had a better answer sooner, and learning that improves future outcomes. Here, the OP has to wait for a response, and it will probably be short text. A google search will instantly produce a list of articles, some with rich graphical examples and detailed comparisons. That's just better. Special purpose forums like this one, while helpful for their particular specialty, are not the best places to ask such general questions. Cheers…

cday wrote: Fri Sep 19, 2025 10:00 pm @jkm: Apologies, the way you have done it was valid...

No worries cday. My impetus was that this person is asking a question that really can only be answered graphically. If you don’t understand jpeg compression, the words are meaningless. People can sit here all day and say it depends on need and expectations of quality and everyone's different, etc, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

But who here is going to go to the trouble of producing a graphical comparison of jpeg compression levels for this guy, when there are already so many out there accessible by search? No one. So send him to the search where he can get a better answer. That was my thinking.

Thanks for all replies.
Other detail because I had posted here is searching in internet that type of topic about what better compression value for JPG does discussion in other subjects
Have an nice week.