Best Media Player

Computer Help and Discussions Software
21

I have seen pictures erode in jpeg format. When I first noticed it many years ago I ran tests on Jpegs. I have been using the PC for picture creation, movie creation, and editing for years.

BMP or RAW are the most common large format files for pictures but there are larger studio quality formats available for pictures and video files. Every picture I use is a large format unless it is a disposable picture say for an avatar or something like that.

Hard storage is on DVD and CD.

Sound files must be the same because surely it can’t only happen to Jpeg pictures exclusively.

Some musicians I know say they can tell if a track is warped or deteriorates with lower formats.

I only use Windows Media Player lossless for music because CDs seldom use anything higher in quality themselves. It is common to see CD tracks that don’t even go above 10,000 Kbs. A CD is only as good as its master. It is the same with any copy of audio, video or ink printed media.

Have never had a problem once with wmp but I would still like Win Amp to work.

22
I have seen pictures erode in jpeg format. When I first noticed it many years ago I ran tests on Jpegs.

If you keep saving the same JPEG file the quality will deteriorate - and yes you can see that when viewing each subsequent generation of the file.

If you open file A (a JPEG) and save, then save it again, and again, the quality will gradually deteriorate because the compression algorithm reduces the quality of the image each time.

If you open file A, save that as file B, save that as file C, the quality of file C will be less than that of B which will be less than that of file A. But the quality of the file A image will remain the same and will not erode over time on its own.

Any lossy file format will behave in the same manner.

23
No file 'loses' image or audio quality sitting on your drive.

True, and one can always MD5 verify files for a proof of concept, or place SFV files in the directory with albums which is important if moving data around between disks, or burning them to discs.

24

So what you are saying is rather than saving files one should always create new files regardless of the file type i.e. music, movie or picture ?

So why is there never a problem like this with text files or is that a font related thing ?

I only have a problem with Jpegs no other files do this to me, but then the other files get a lot less work done to them because they are better resolution to start with. Jpegs are just disposable files for my works.

25

Not quite :). What I am saying is that if you save a file that uses a lossy compression file format, like a jpeg, you will lose quality compared to the original. Basically the loss of quality actually takes place at the time at which you save the file because that's when the lossy algorithm is applied.

So for example, if you are editing a photograph, it's always better to work with a lossless format. So I might decide to do all my edits in say lossless TIFF, so each time I edit the actual picture quality will be the same as the last. As you pointed out earlier, these files get very big. So I might keep the first one, in case I want to start all over again. I will definitely keep the last one ... that becomes the 'master' copy at maximum quality.

But TIFFs can be huge, so chances are I'll want to work with a jpeg if say, I want to send a high quality copy to a friend. so I will save that TIFF (create a new file) as a high quality jpeg. However, if I want to do a low-res and/or low quality copy to put on the web, I won't take it from the jpeg, I'll do a different copy from the TIFF - because that will have better quality than if I'd taken it from the first jpeg. Not a huge difference (because the first jpeg was high quality) ... but that's where quality starts to go once we keep taking jpegs from jpegs.

Doing a Windows or system file copy of a jpeg (or any other file) is fine ... that's just a byte for byte copy. You can copy those around to your heart's content and you won't lose quality.

So text files aren't normally compressed, and even when we use zip compression it uses a lossless format so that when we unzip we get exactly the same data back out.

In fact most data we work with on PCs is lossless - some will be compressed, like zip archives, but most isn't. Raw audio or pictures or video takes up a huge amount of space - so we use file formats with some form of compression in order to make them smaller ... and that's when you have to be careful if you do a lot of editing.

This doesn't mean jpegs are bad - far from it. Jpegs and other lossy formats all have a time and a place ... it's just being aware of the pitfalls :) Look at mp3s, which are also lossy ... everyone has 'em, but if you were producing music you wouldn't work with those as master copies.

Here's a better link re pics ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

26

So, as you can see from the info above, A file will only loose quality after it is saved as a lower quality file type (lossy) jpg/gif.

The jpg/gif file wont look any better/worse than when you last saved it even if you let it sit there for 10 years. (tho' if your hard drive dies that could be an issue)

27
A file will only loose quality after it is saved as a lower quality file type (lossy) jpg/gif.

I'm not even sure that's the case. If you do 'Save As' in the same piece of software, you will end up with different file sizes (at least, in the software I've tried). Only a matter of bytes; but it's not an exact copy.

If I am concerned about quality the only way I will copy a jpeg is with a system file copy.

Gifs are lossless - just have a lower colour range.

28
I'm not even sure that's the case. If you do 'Save As' in the same piece of software, you will end up with different file sizes (at least, in the software I've tried). Only a matter of bytes; but it's not an exact copy.

I think Andavari touched on this...

If you open a jpeg and file "save as" it may/will drop bytes again (I think it's because a save as will run the compression again).

So as you've been doing, only use the windows copy menu/command if you need a copy of the file and don't need a different file type/resolution.

Gifs are lossless - just have a lower colour range.

After I posted that I thought I got the gif one was incorrect (had read something on it ages ago),

But my break (at work) was over so couldn't double check my info before finalizing my post, too late to save face now lol :D

:::

And just to confuse the OP further,

You can get some good quality jpg's and they are large files, most wallpapers are offered as jpg's and don't always look compressed.

Either way the file will not loose quality over time, it will only lose quality after being saved at a lower quality or if the program compresses it when saving it (not all programs give you a quality/compression option when saving).

Moral of the story:

1. Always keep an original copy (A bit of an oxymoron lol) of the file.

2. Make another copy of that as the one you want to do the edits on.

:: Feel free to correct/clarify any of my info, :) ::

29
I think Andavari touched on this...

If you open a jpeg and file "save as" it may/will drop bytes again (I think it's because a save as will run the compression again).

That's certainly my experience - that's why I don't use that method to 'copy' a jpeg.

:: Feel free to correct/clarify any of my info, :) ::

Nope - sounds like everyone is agreeing ;)

Now, what was the topic again ... ah yes 'best media player'!! :huh:

30
I think Andavari touched on this...

If you open a jpeg and file "save as" it may/will drop bytes again (I think it's because a save as will run the compression again).

Yes you are right save as is not much use for master copies and it does drop artefacts everywhere when you use save as in most art packages. I only ever convert files for storage masters or for production into larger files because it makes life a lot easier and the retouch or FX work much sharper.

Maybe we should open a new Post for file type discussion from this point ?

Now, what was the topic again ... ah yes 'best media player

Yes sorry for the little diversion from the OP but file quality is connected to how good a player is.

Windows Media Player and a good up to date Codec pack should keep all happy for playing music of any common file type,

it is windows supported after all. It also has a feature of album cover art for the folder and complete listing of tracks so you don’t have to type them all out, I was very grateful for that with Beethovens complete works collection :lol:

The only complaint I know or have with Win Amp is that it does not work on all PC’s.

31

One big problem with Windows Media Player is it's inability to properly play "gapless" tracks. An essential feature for any music player if you listen to concept type albums (Floyd), and Classical music.

32

I'm sure you've posted this many times over, Dennis, but what's your media player of choice?

33
One big problem with Windows Media Player is it's inability to properly play "gapless" tracks. An essential feature for any music player if you listen to concept type albums (Floyd), and Classical music.

The earlier version I had of WMP did this on my PC but the new one is ok? for now.

I also got a new sound card when v.11 was installed for 5.1.

Could this have something to do with sound cards also ?

34

Monkey, what is your current WMP version? (I have 11.0.6001)

I also have Power2Go, Ashampoo and Free CD Music Converter. Since the 2 sec gap cannot be disabled in my WMP, to burn an opera the best I can use is Power2Go, which cuts it to a split sec. Only my Sony tape deck can make a gapless copy ! :lol:

35
Monkey, what is your current WMP version? (I have 11.0.6001)

Sorry it was a while back since I installed it and can't remember exactly what V but it is 11. ????????

If you want serious copies then I suggest you look up a Yamaha CDR-HD 1500.

There are different models to choose from but they are all the same kit inside apart from the HD size.

They give you exceptional copies regardless of track blending etc.

I find that too many programs cause problems that can be hard to eliminate because of the amount of programs for doing one job only :wacko:

My PC audio is strange and gets upset easily with new programs for sound. I have had to take many sound programs off because of it including Q base. Now I try too keep players to a minimum to save getting conflicts.

36
I'm sure you've posted this many times over, Dennis, but what's your media player of choice?

I use Foobar2000 for music, MPlayer with MPUI for video as it plays everything, and I use Windows Media Player to put music onto my Sony Walkman.

WMP is actually a pretty good music player apart from the gapless thing. It does have the ability to set a crossfade between tracks, which sounds very close to gapless, but not the same thing sadly.

It sounds like I'm banging on a bit about gapless, but from my personal standpoint, it's essential.

Just as a matter of interest, the Sony Walkman doesn't do the gapless playback thing, so I have to get around that by using Foobar to convert an album into a single track, and that's as gapless as you can get.

37
... Sony Walkman ...

Now that takes me back ... remember the original ones ... with cassettes ... ? :D

38
Now that takes me back ... remember the original ones ... with cassettes ... ? :D

Yep, I've still got one.

In fact I've got a Walkman Cassette, Portable CD player, Portable MiniDisk player, and now a Walklman MP3/4 Video player.

The entire history of the Walkman sitting in a cupboard.

39

Wow - might be worth a few bob in a year or two ;)

40
In fact I've got a...Portable MiniDisk player...

Leaping LaserDisc Batman!