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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On 2018-01-07 23:30, 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 | | 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.) Oh, I'm more than 95% certain :-) 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. I rather suppose he is curious about why they are not about the same size, if the pixel number is the same. But it does not matter to me why is he making them. Not my business :-) 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 It is a perfectly suited tool for this task (a repeated task in a script). much care about the quality of them. But you do care about the file size? Why? Then use the -quality parameter, to make sure it is the same on all runs. With no value given, the program tries to estimate the value used in the original and use the same (see http://www.imagemagick.org/script/co...s.php#quality). It'd be easier for people to provide a helpful answer if you'd explain yourself. We're not your mother. Sigh... Maybe he doesn't know what other information to provide, and you can simply politely ask for what you think you need :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ): 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. I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what? If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained, why would the concept of “quality” be attached to thumbnails of all things? I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ): 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? Why use “convert” which I have never heard of when I have Lightroom, Bridge, and a few others in my photgraphic tool box? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On 2018-01-08 03:14, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote (in article ): 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. I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what? Does it matter? If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained, why would the concept of “quality” be attached to thumbnails of all things? I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality. Yes, you do. Any JPG generation has a "quality". It can be "one", so very bad, or it can be "a hundred", so as best as can be, or any number in between. Any jpg generated or changed has a quality number. You choose the number, or you let the software decide. Having a quality does not mean having high quality. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
In article , Mayayana
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? yes 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. maybe he wants a different size. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what? Does it matter? yes. If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained, why would the concept of quality be attached to thumbnails of all things? I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality. Yes, you do. Any JPG generation has a "quality". It can be "one", so very bad, or it can be "a hundred", so as best as can be, or any number in between. Any jpg generated or changed has a quality number. You choose the number, or you let the software decide. that doesn't answer the question. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
In article , Carlos E.R.
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 Why? Why not use decent software? "convert" is very decent and powerful software. What would you use in a script, then? there's no need to use a script at all. why make things more difficult than they need to be? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ): On 2018-01-08 03:14, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote (in ): 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. I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what? Does it matter? If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained, why would the concept of “quality” be attached to thumbnails of all things? I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality. Yes, you do. Any JPG generation has a "quality". It can be "one", so very bad, or it can be "a hundred", so as best as can be, or any number in between. Any jpg generated or changed has a quality number. You choose the number, or you let the software decide. Having a quality does not mean having high quality. ....er, OK. It seems we are talking at cross purposes. While I have produced many JPEGs, I have not gone out of my way to deliberately produce thumbnails. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On 2018-01-08 03:17, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote (in article ): 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? Why use “convert” which I have never heard of when I have Lightroom, Bridge, and a few others in my photgraphic tool box? Because it is a tool designed for scripts and other repetitive tasks. Most Linux users doing image handling will be familiar with it, but you also have it in Windows, and is used by other tools in the back without telling you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMagick The tiny code excerpt from the OP would process an entire directory in one click. Or one "enter". As you can see in the documentation, "convert" has dozens of possible options, several pages: http://imagemagick.org/script/convert.php There are also many examples of use. For instance, there is one "-thumbnail": https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/resize/#thumbnail A whole chapter of it: https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/ And it has some information that may explain what is happening to the OP: «Many images from digital cameras, scanning software, and some paint programs (photoshop is notorious for this), save extra information about the image in the form of profiles. This includes image formats such a JPEG, PNG, TIFF and as of IM v6.2.4-1 GIF. Of course the IM specific format, MIFF also does this. (See Image Profiles for more detailed information).» «These profiles can be up to 60 Kb in size, so can make a big difference to your file size, and by default IM will preserve this profile information. Thumbnails have no need for this data and often not even the main image needs it.» -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
thumbnail sizes
On 2018-01-08 03:49, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. 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 Why? Why not use decent software? "convert" is very decent and powerful software. What would you use in a script, then? there's no need to use a script at all. why make things more difficult than they need to be? Scripts are trivial to use for automation. What, you do not know...? Wow. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |