request to convert image to png

[james438]

I want to convert this image into png format with a black cross with a transparent background. I'm hoping someone might be interested. I don't have the means or know how to do this.

Thanks

EDIT: You can see an example of this symbol here. In most browsers and PCs the Q looks like the image shown above. This is not true for mobile browsers, which is why I am hoping to get the png version of that image. Technically it is the letter Q when viewed in a type of symbol font.

I also notice that the image I uploaded to DD was converted to jpeg format

EDIT: Here is a link to the png version I created. http://www.animeviews.com/images/pops/cross.png

[djr33]

I'm not sure what damage the conversion to JPG did. Repost with a link to the file somewhere else if this doesn't work for you.
You could also use a GIF if you wanted just simple transparency (either transparent or not).
But this PNG is about as good as you'll get from that.

[james438]

I edited the post above with a link to the png version of the image. Not that it is needed since the version you created for me is excellent. Thank you

[djr33]

If you zoom in a lot to the PNG, you'll see the same fuzzy pixels in it that are there in the JPG version-- looks like the JPG conversion didn't harm anything.
If it turns out that the fuzzy pixels need to be removed, you probably just need to paint them out. But they're not visible unless you zoom in (or maybe against certain backgrounds), but they could also give it some texture.
Glad it works for you.

[bernie1227]

However, the main problem with jpg is not the quality of the original photo, but retaining the quality. Jpg is a compression format, and as such, the goalis to compress the picture, as to take up less space. Every time a jpg is saved, it compresses, if I remember correctly, by about 10:1 for each pixel. If there are a lot of fiddle pixels in the photo which make a big difference, this am effect it.
Hope I helped,
Bernie

[djr33]

JPG has a quality range of 1 to 10 (at least that's how it's displayed often, maybe it's really 1% to 100%), and the loss of quality varies by that, as well as by the details in the image-- in this case it's black and white so very little was lost. Originally I saw some fuzzy pixels and I wasn't sure if they were in the original or due to the JPG conversion. But they're in the original too, so it looks like JPG compression didn't do much.

Converting to JPG is a bad idea if you want to maintain full quality. But it can (as in this case) not do much damage. Other times (especially if the quality is set very low) it can be obviously lower quality; or it can be somewhere in the middle where there's essentially invisible quality loss that only appears if you later do other things to the image.

[james438]

I did upload the image to this thread in png format, but the forum decided to convert it to jpeg for some reason.

I could be wrong. I tried to upload it just now and it did upload it as png, so maybe I accidentally uploaded the wrong image.

I believe the image quality is 1 to 100. Take a look at imagejpeg.

[djr33]

I believe the image quality is 1 to 100. Take a look at imagejpeg.

That's true. But in other programs I've seen 1 to 10. So I don't know what the technical specifications are for the format. It might in fact not have any literal "quality" specifications, just that various algorithms that can convert to JPG choose to do so with varying quality on whatever scale applies to that algorithm. The final image is just JPEG data... I don't think it's JPEG data at X%.

[jscheuer1]

The bottom line is that once an image is 'stepped on' using the JPEG format it can be difficult or impossible to retrieve the 100% quality/resolution it once had without resorting to the the original. That information isn't saved, you can only try editing the image back to higher quality. So always keep a backup of the original. I try to alway edit only copies. The three programs* I use have a scale of 1 to 100 or 1 to 99. So at least that much is available. There could be a number of other stops available in the format, like 11.765% for example. But 1 to 100 seems adequate. Some programs use 1 as the best quality, 100 as the worst, most are 1 as the most compression/least quality, 100 as the least compression/most quality.


*Paint Shop Pro, The Gimp, Xat Optimizer Pro

[djr33]

The bottom line is that once an image is 'stepped on' using the JPEG format it can be difficult or impossible to retrieve the 100% quality/resolution it once had without resorting to the the original.

Right, but what I was trying to explain above is that the amount of damage varies greatly-- in this case, I can't see any at all.
As a general rule, it's good to save backups of full quality images, a very good idea.
But that's not the problem here-- James just uploaded a JPG or uploaded a PNG that was automatically converted to a JPG. The question was just whether, in this case, it would be worth redoing the conversion (to remove the background) with the original PNG. And it wasn't-- the quality from the JPG was fine.

Some programs use 1 as the best quality, 100 as the worst, most are 1 as the most compression/least quality, 100 as the least compression/most quality.

It's this sort of variation that makes me wonder if it really isn't part of the format at all, just a part of certain/most algorithms that convert to JPG.