When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the rotate
option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression quality
for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building a slide
show.

Dan

JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to a
jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files read
only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format popular
is the extremely small size.

What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a jpg
file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or PNG.
After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format to keep
the size small.

A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
called IrfanView.

IrfanView website:
[url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]


--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
> image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
> image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
> However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
> highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the
> rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
> a slide show.
>[/color]

There IS something called lossless JPG rotation and some programs support it
[url]http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=lossless+jpg+rotation[/url]


"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:363C9CBD-FA7C-4398-9738-A243112796F6@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Dan
>
> JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to
> a jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files
> read only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format
> popular is the extremely small size.
>
> What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a
> jpg file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or
> PNG. After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format to
> keep the size small.
>
> A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
> called IrfanView.
>
> IrfanView website:
> [url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]
>
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that
>> the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this
>> function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see
>> that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only
>> and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
>> a slide show.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

the new irfanview supports lossless jpeg rotations if you install the plugin
pack as well, and is free of course
after you download and install it and the plugins then go to the menu>
Options> Lossless jpeg operations
see screenshot [url]http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/905/clipboard01lj3.jpg[/url]

"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
> image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
> image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
> However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
> highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the
> rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
> a slide show.
>[/color]

what you say is terribly wrong.. once you save in jpg again you have lost
data...

I seldom see an MVP say something correct lately.. is this some retardation
due to vista use?

See this page MVP and learn [url]http://www.snapfiles.com/get/rota.html[/url]

"Rotating a JPEG image usually takes 3 steps: de-compress JPEG to bitmap,
rotate bitmap, re-compress bitmap to JPEG. This re-compression process
causes additional loss of image quality. "


there are many programs like the above that can do lossless rotations and
even irfanview can if you know what you are doing..
MVPs that use vista apparently don't know.. or else they would not be using
vista the most horrible OS of all times!

the new irfanview supports lossless jpeg rotations if you install the plugin
pack as well, and is free of course
after you download and install it and the plugins then go to the menu>
Options> Lossless jpeg operations
see screenshot [url]http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/905/clipboard01lj3.jpg[/url]



"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:363C9CBD-FA7C-4398-9738-A243112796F6@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Dan
>
> JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to
> a jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files
> read only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format
> popular is the extremely small size.
>
> What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a
> jpg file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or
> PNG. After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format to
> keep the size small.
>
> A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
> called IrfanView.
>
> IrfanView website:
> [url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]
>
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that
>> the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this
>> function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see
>> that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only
>> and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
>> a slide show.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Rotating a compressed image (jpg) will always result in a degraded image.
This is because in order to rotate it the picture must be decompressed, then
rotated and then a degraded image (the origional jpg compression) is
degraded again in the recompression. Not much that you can do about that,
although I am supprised that 2MB went all the way to 1MB.

Michael

"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
> image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
> image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
> However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
> highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the
> rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
> a slide show.
>[/color]

I have Photoshop on my XP partition and can easily rotate images with it.
Photoshop gives you a save-as quality choice. So I can rotate and minimize
any generation lose. Somewhere in the Vista code is a setting that
determines the jpg quality. Maybe not a setting per se but there must be
code that determines the algorithm. Even cameras usually give you at least
two choices. My newest camera knows when it shoots vertical and writes data
to the exif portion of the photo and most image software including Windows
will rotate the image properly. My older camera did not do this and I have
many hundreds of vertical images that need to be rotated for proper viewing.
It would be nice to be able to copy and rotate them in a batch. I've read
about software that will do just that but if Windows could rotate without
such a quality loss that would be nice. I bet there's a way.

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:363C9CBD-FA7C-4398-9738-A243112796F6@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Dan
>
> JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to
> a jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files
> read only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format
> popular is the extremely small size.
>
> What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a
> jpg file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or
> PNG. After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format to
> keep the size small.
>
> A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
> called IrfanView.
>
> IrfanView website:
> [url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]
>
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that
>> the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this
>> function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see
>> that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only
>> and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
>> a slide show.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:38:02 -0500, "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I have Photoshop on my XP partition and can easily rotate images with it.
>Photoshop gives you a save-as quality choice. So I can rotate and minimize
>any generation lose. Somewhere in the Vista code is a setting that
>determines the jpg quality. Maybe not a setting per se but there must be
>code that determines the algorithm. Even cameras usually give you at least
>two choices. My newest camera knows when it shoots vertical and writes data
>to the exif portion of the photo and most image software including Windows
>will rotate the image properly. My older camera did not do this and I have
>many hundreds of vertical images that need to be rotated for proper viewing.
>It would be nice to be able to copy and rotate them in a batch. I've read
>about software that will do just that but if Windows could rotate without
>such a quality loss that would be nice. I bet there's a way.[/color]

Photoshop which I've used since version 2 is a very high quality
application, with a price tag to match ;-). It includes Image Ready
which can greatly reduce file size without a serious hit in quality.
This feature is mainly for reducing images that end up on the web so
they don't take forever to download however you can use it for other
purposes.

It is the algorithms that determine what results you end up with.

Besides working on compressed images in a lossless state if you are
planning on reducing their dimensional size making them either smaller
or large an old Photoshop trick is to do it in stages. In other words
if you want to increase the dimensions of a image by 50% instead of
trying to do it in one big step, instead do it in stages of no more
than 10% a time.[color=blue]
>
>"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
>news:363C9CBD-FA7C-4398-9738-A243112796F6@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> Dan
>>
>> JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to
>> a jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files
>> read only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format
>> popular is the extremely small size.
>>
>> What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a
>> jpg file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or
>> PNG. After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format to
>> keep the size small.
>>
>> A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
>> called IrfanView.
>>
>> IrfanView website:
>> [url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that
>>> the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this
>>> function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see
>>> that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only
>>> and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
>>> a slide show.
>>>[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:30:42 +0300, "carl feredeck"
<carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>what you say is terribly wrong.. once you save in jpg again you have lost
>data...
>
>I seldom see an MVP say something correct lately.. is this some retardation
>due to vista use?
>
>See this page MVP and learn [url]http://www.snapfiles.com/get/rota.html[/url]
>
> "Rotating a JPEG image usually takes 3 steps: de-compress JPEG to bitmap,
>rotate bitmap, re-compress bitmap to JPEG. This re-compression process
>causes additional loss of image quality. "[/color]

Don't confuse marketing hype with reality. Doubtless everyone has seen
all the threads saying Media Player, Movie Maker can't open such and
such video file. The reason is they are missing or can't use the de
compressor that's part of the CODEC. Same holds true with still
images. If they're compressed, then they need to be decompressed in
order to open them. What the ad copy on the above link implies is they
stop half way, which is just snake oil.

You can't un ring a bell, once any image video or still is compressed
some bits have been squeezed out, you can't put them back. In a
similar vain if you manipulate a raster based image then some pixels
are getting redistributed, discarded or added depending on what you're
trying to accomplish. It's the process itself and how well the
application can do the task that matters. The two most common methods
are Bilinear and Bicubic Interpolation. Better software uses smarter
algorithms.

Recompressing some already compressed image is a no-no. However
freezing it in it's current state by first transcoding it to a
lossless file format minimizes the re compression assuming the user
plans on re saving it in a compressed format again once he's done
working on it. Again HOW you do that, meaning what application you use
to accomplish it determines the final result.

so you too have been using vista so long your brain has been converted to
mush?

You can rotate jpeg without loss! google the keywords "lossless jpeg
rotation"



"Michael" <mexxwalraven@verson.net> wrote in message
news:%23yJG79zyHHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Rotating a compressed image (jpg) will always result in a degraded image.
> This is because in order to rotate it the picture must be decompressed,
> then rotated and then a degraded image (the origional jpg compression) is
> degraded again in the recompression. Not much that you can do about that,
> although I am supprised that 2MB went all the way to 1MB.
>
> Michael
>
> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that
>> the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this
>> function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see
>> that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only
>> and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
>> a slide show.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Ok, this is not so much a Vista thing as an image thing. No matter, I will
still comment.

I have read the thread, and agree wholeheartedly with the person who said to
convert it to an uncompressed format first, then work on it, and finally
save as the jpg. When I do a shoot, I will generate hundreds of images (both
raw + jpg). Once sorted, those that are of quality are converted to .tif
format (my personal preference) before any action occurs to the image,
whether rotating or editing. I _never_ work on a jpg and then save the
result, for reasons of loss.

Irfinview? Wonderful wonderful program for viewing, converting and cropping.
Highly recommended. For everything else I use GIMP.

R.

"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
> image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
> image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
> However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
> highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the
> rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
> a slide show.
>[/color]

Opening the jpg and saving as a tif or "converting" from jpg to tif with a
program like Irfinview... Is there a difference? Is Irfinview able to make
that jpg into a tif that is of a higher quality than if you opened the jpg
and did a save-as to tif? Is there a separate conversion process different
from open / save-as?
I can clearly see that making the original jpg a lossless format is the way
to go if you intend to edit the image multiple times. But what if you know
you only need to edit the image once?
I have always thought that when you opened an image in photoshop... once
opened it didn't matter what the original format was. As an opened image
(file) it's uncompressed at that stage and you can note its uncompressed
file size. Always much larger than the original .jpg.

[color=blue]
> I have read the thread, and agree wholeheartedly with the person who said
> to convert it to an uncompressed format first, then work on it, and
> finally save as the jpg. When I do a shoot, I will generate hundreds of
> images (both raw + jpg). Once sorted, those that are of quality are
> converted to .tif format (my personal preference) before any action occurs
> to the image, whether rotating or editing. I _never_ work on a jpg and
> then save the result, for reasons of loss.
>
> Irfinview? Wonderful wonderful program for viewing, converting and
> cropping. Highly recommended. For everything else I use GIMP.
>
> R.[/color]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:15:25 -0500, "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Opening the jpg and saving as a tif or "converting" from jpg to tif with a
>program like Irfinview... Is there a difference?[/color]

While the method is often similar HOW any particular application does
its "thing" is determined by how well it's various Algorithms are
written.

Photoshop has been and remains the undisputed king of all photo
enhancement tools and it has been that for decades. I know of no
professional that uses something else. If Photoshop is 'that good' or
not I can't say, since I've always used Photoshop.

Some knock-off applications that try to mimic some of what Photoshop
can do like Paint Shop Pro, now bought out by Corel are also good and
for all the Linux haters out there, absolutely one of the best full
featured FREE graphic programs that's been ported to Windows from the
Linux world is GIMP which can give Photoshop a run for it's money.
[color=blue]
>Is Irfinview able to make
>that jpg into a tif that is of a higher quality than if you opened the jpg
>and did a save-as to tif? Is there a separate conversion process different
>from open / save-as?[/color]

I've tried IrfranView and can't say that I was impressed. Remember
IrfranView is marketed as a VIEWER that can do conversions and make
some minor adjustments. It isn't a full blown graphics program. Saying
it is "good" is like somebody saying the few crude tools included in
Microsoft Photo Galley under "fix" are good tools or that Movie Maker
is the ultimate video editor. They are not. Both are basically toys
again NO professional would use either.

As far as quality, you can't unring a bell! If you start with a image
that is compressed, like a JPEG, a lot of the image's original bits
have been discarded in the initial compression process when the file
was originally saved. They're gone. Those bits no longer exist, these
is no way on God's green earth anything can put them back.

What you can do for lack of a better word is "freeze in time" the
current state of the image's overall quality by working on it in one
of several popular lossless formats. This can't make the image
"better" but it at least prevents it from detorating worse.

Lot of confusion on just exactly what this means. When you "open" a
graphic file regardless what application you use, it first has to
decompress the file if it's un a compressed format like a JPG.

If you're only going to do some quick and dirty fix and not save it to
come back to work on later, then you can safely skip the save in a
lossless format step. The reason you see a lot of people saying save
in a lossless format is the assumption is whatever you're going to do
will span time and they simply want you to avoid the constant
recompressing if your open the file, do a little work, then save it as
a JPG, a couple days later open it again, work on it some more save it
as another JPG and so. Don't do that. That's bad. Saving a file in the
application's native "save as" format should be ok, since your really
saving a project file which should just be instructions on what you
changed, but as of yet haven't rendered. Again check your application
manual to be sure that's what is really happening.

Carl

Thank you for posting the updated information.

I come to these newsgroups to gain knowledge, as well as help other users.
Fortunately, unlike yourself, I have never felt the need to add personal
insults or take cheap shots when I post information to help other users.


--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote in message
news:46a16fd8@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=blue]
> what you say is terribly wrong.. once you save in jpg again you have lost
> data...
>
> I seldom see an MVP say something correct lately.. is this some
> retardation due to vista use?
>
> See this page MVP and learn [url]http://www.snapfiles.com/get/rota.html[/url]
>
> "Rotating a JPEG image usually takes 3 steps: de-compress JPEG to bitmap,
> rotate bitmap, re-compress bitmap to JPEG. This re-compression process
> causes additional loss of image quality. "
>
>
> there are many programs like the above that can do lossless rotations and
> even irfanview can if you know what you are doing..
> MVPs that use vista apparently don't know.. or else they would not be
> using vista the most horrible OS of all times!
>
> the new irfanview supports lossless jpeg rotations if you install the
> plugin pack as well, and is free of course
> after you download and install it and the plugins then go to the menu>
> Options> Lossless jpeg operations
> see screenshot [url]http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/905/clipboard01lj3.jpg[/url]
>
>
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:363C9CBD-FA7C-4398-9738-A243112796F6@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> Dan
>>
>> JPG images are what's called a "lossy" image format. Everything you do to
>> a jpg image file will degrade the quality of the image. Making the files
>> read only will protect them. The only thing that makes this image format
>> popular is the extremely small size.
>>
>> What you can do if you do want to rotate or perform other enhancing of a
>> jpg file is to first convert it to a "lossless" format such as, TIF, or
>> PNG. After you make the changes, you can save it back to the jpg format
>> to keep the size small.
>>
>> A good, free imaging program, that can easily convert these files is one
>> called IrfanView.
>>
>> IrfanView website:
>> [url]http://www.irfanview.net/[/url]
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate
>>> that image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me
>>> that the image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use
>>> this function. However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I
>>> see that I can highlight all the images in a folder and make them
>>> read-only and the rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
>>> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
>>> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when
>>> building a slide show.
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

I just returned from a birthday party having taken 40 or so pictures with my
Canon XTi. I had 6 vertical pictures. Vista showed them horizontal in the
folder view. For some reason I thought Vista was smart enough to rotate them
vertical for viewing. But after copying the vertical pictures and rotating
them... I now find that they are exactly the same file size. I know for sure
that with other pictures the file size was halved after rotating. I vaguely
remember reading that lossless rotation can take place under certain
circumstances when the aspect or certain horizontal / vertical relationships
are present. Looks like I need to do more research / experiments.

"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:uNtxIizyHHA.6028@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> When right clicking on an image file, say jpg, and choosing to rotate that
> image... a file that may have been 2MB becomes 1MB. Seems to me that the
> image is greatly degraded in quality. So I chose to not use this function.
> However it's easy to click on that choice by mistake. I see that I can
> highlight all the images in a folder and make them read-only and the
> rotate option becomes grayed out. That's a good thing.
> But I'm wondering if there is a setting that will up the compression
> quality for image rotation. It could come in handy at times when building
> a slide show.
>[/color]