A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

thumbnail sizes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 18, 08:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Phillip Helbig[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default thumbnail sizes

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done

Files from the K10D result in thumbnails of about 57 kB and those from
the GR of about 46 kB, with little variation. Is there a simple
explanation as to why?

The K10D is 10 megapixels and the GR 16, but I don't see why that is
relevant here, but maybe I am missing something.

  #2  
Old January 7th 18, 08:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,505
Default thumbnail sizes

"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" wrote

| I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:
|
| for img in *.JPG; do
| echo thumbnailing $img
| convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
| done
|

Are people supposed to know what OS/software
you're using that code with?

I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.


  #3  
Old January 7th 18, 09:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-07 21:46, Mayayana wrote:
"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" wrote

| I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:
|
| for img in *.JPG; do
| echo thumbnailing $img
| convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
| done
|

Are people supposed to know what OS/software
you're using that code with?


Linux/bash and ImageMagick, obviously :-P


I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.


To customize the size and quality, for instance.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #4  
Old January 7th 18, 09:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-07 21:07, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done

Files from the K10D result in thumbnails of about 57 kB and those from
the GR of about 46 kB, with little variation. Is there a simple
explanation as to why?

The K10D is 10 megapixels and the GR 16, but I don't see why that is
relevant here, but maybe I am missing something.


I was going to say that the camera with more megapixels would convert to
a bigger size, but the reverse is happening.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #5  
Old January 7th 18, 09:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,542
Default thumbnail sizes

On Jan 7, 2018, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply wrote
(in article ):

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done


Why?
Why not use decent software?

Files from the K10D result in thumbnails of about 57 kB and those from
the GR of about 46 kB, with little variation. Is there a simple
explanation as to why?


Different cameras, different image content.

The K10D is 10 megapixels and the GR 16, but I don't see why that is
relevant here, but maybe I am missing something.


The RAW file size, and native JPEG size is going to be different for those
two cameras. As a result any thumbnail from those different sources is going
to have a different size.

I am still curious as to why you need to generate thumbnails. It seems to be
a pointless exercise.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #6  
Old January 7th 18, 09:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,542
Default thumbnail sizes

On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 21:46, Mayayana wrote:
"Phillip Helbig (undress to wrote

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done


Are people supposed to know what OS/software
you're using that code with?


Linux/bash and ImageMagick, obviously :-P


That figures.

I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.


To customize the size and quality, for instance.


Quality for thumbnails?
To what purpose?
It seems to be a waste of time, and a futile, unnecessary exercise.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #7  
Old January 7th 18, 10:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,505
Default thumbnail sizes

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| I was going to say that the camera with more megapixels would convert to
| a bigger size, but the reverse is happening.
|

MP doesn't matter because it's the same
number of pixels in the thumbnail if they're
both the same width/height. There could be
slight differences due to simpler or more complex
images that compress differently, but with such
a big difference the only explanation I can
think of is that there's a difference in the
compression. The code doesn't include a
"quality" parameter to set compression level
so maybe ImageMagick is deciding based on
input size? Who knows? He's using a hammer
to hit a tack.

It's hard to see why it should matter. He's
using a limited command line tool to get
thumbnails and not even setting the quality
option. Does he really need exactly that size?
If so, why? Is it worth sacrificing quality?
He didn't explain any of that. Apparently he
doesn't care very much about the quality but
is just curious about the different file sizes
resulting.



  #8  
Old January 7th 18, 10:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,505
Default thumbnail sizes

"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" wrote

| I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:
|
| for img in *.JPG; do
| echo thumbnailing $img
| convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
| done
|
| Files from the K10D result in thumbnails of about 57 kB and those from
| the GR of about 46 kB, with little variation. Is there a simple
| explanation as to why?
|
| The K10D is 10 megapixels and the GR 16, but I don't see why that is
| relevant here, but maybe I am missing something.
|

Are the originals the same aspect ratio?
If not then you might be getting something
like a 105x65 and a 105x50. You also didn't
spec the compression level with the quality
parameter. (Assuming you're using ImageMagick
as Carlos speculated.)

You didn't say what the context of the code
is. You didn't say why you're making thumbnails
or whether they need to be the same size. You
didn't extract them, which would probably make
more sense. So all we know is that you're making
thumbnails with a poorly suited tool and you don't
much care about the quality of them. But you
do care about the file size? Why?

It'd be easier for people to provide a helpful
answer if you'd explain yourself. We're not your
mother.


  #9  
Old January 8th 18, 01:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-07 22:26, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 21:46, Mayayana wrote:
"Phillip Helbig (undress to wrote

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done

Are people supposed to know what OS/software
you're using that code with?


Linux/bash and ImageMagick, obviously :-P


That figures.

I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.


To customize the size and quality, for instance.


Quality for thumbnails?
To what purpose?
It seems to be a waste of time, and a futile, unnecessary exercise.


No. I said "to customize the size and quality" which is different than
doing a quality thumbnail. ie, to have thumbnails of the exact quality
(small quality) that one wishes.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #10  
Old January 8th 18, 01:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-07 22:22, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply wrote
(in article ):

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done


Why?
Why not use decent software?


"convert" is very decent and powerful software.
What would you use in a script, then?

--
Cheers, Carlos.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thumbnail puzzle VanguardLH Digital Photography 2 February 15th 14 02:28 AM
Thumbnail puzzle Martin Brown Digital Photography 1 February 14th 14 07:12 PM
Thumbnail orientation Terry Pinnell Digital Photography 1 March 21st 05 04:54 PM
Thumbnail Software? Dave Digital Photography 40 September 23rd 04 06:28 AM
Thumbnail software Ron G Digital Photography 1 August 23rd 04 05:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.