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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
better to compress the jpeg or reduce resolution or reduce pixel size?
Heya guys,
If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one. Problem is, with photoshop I arent entirely sure what is the best way of achieving this file size, or how to calculate it without saving as a different filename and previewing using the "properties" of the image icon. If I reduce resolution this brings down the file size, as does reducing the image dimensions (pixels) as does compressing. Which would you reccomend as the best method? I notice photoshop has THREE maximum settings (10,11,12). Also I arent entirely sure how much of each does to the filesize. For instance I started with a 3 mb file, I reduced it in size and saved it, and the file, despite being smaller was now 3.5 mb!!! Any light ANYONE can shed will be most appreciated. Mr.Will |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you decrease the resolution of the pictures via Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro
etc....you're losing picture image quality. If you simply reduce the photo size in the camera, it will be more than sufficient for viewing, unless you're going to blow these things up. It's best likened to developing an 8X10 of a photo that was shot at 100 ISO, to doing the same picture 8X10 of a photo using 800 ISO. I use Paint Shop Pro's Photo Album sofware. It's GREAT for batch resizing (or renaming) of photo's. I can do 50 12MB files into 50 500k files in about 20 minutes. If you did them individually....it'd take all night! Hope this helped you a bit. "Mr.Will" wrote in message ... Heya guys, If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one. Problem is, with photoshop I arent entirely sure what is the best way of achieving this file size, or how to calculate it without saving as a different filename and previewing using the "properties" of the image icon. If I reduce resolution this brings down the file size, as does reducing the image dimensions (pixels) as does compressing. Which would you reccomend as the best method? I notice photoshop has THREE maximum settings (10,11,12). Also I arent entirely sure how much of each does to the filesize. For instance I started with a 3 mb file, I reduced it in size and saved it, and the file, despite being smaller was now 3.5 mb!!! Any light ANYONE can shed will be most appreciated. Mr.Will |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If you decrease the resolution of the pictures via Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro
etc....you're losing picture image quality. If you simply reduce the photo size in the camera, it will be more than sufficient for viewing, unless you're going to blow these things up. It's best likened to developing an 8X10 of a photo that was shot at 100 ISO, to doing the same picture 8X10 of a photo using 800 ISO. I use Paint Shop Pro's Photo Album sofware. It's GREAT for batch resizing (or renaming) of photo's. I can do 50 12MB files into 50 500k files in about 20 minutes. If you did them individually....it'd take all night! Hope this helped you a bit. "Mr.Will" wrote in message ... Heya guys, If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one. Problem is, with photoshop I arent entirely sure what is the best way of achieving this file size, or how to calculate it without saving as a different filename and previewing using the "properties" of the image icon. If I reduce resolution this brings down the file size, as does reducing the image dimensions (pixels) as does compressing. Which would you reccomend as the best method? I notice photoshop has THREE maximum settings (10,11,12). Also I arent entirely sure how much of each does to the filesize. For instance I started with a 3 mb file, I reduced it in size and saved it, and the file, despite being smaller was now 3.5 mb!!! Any light ANYONE can shed will be most appreciated. Mr.Will |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:29:09 GMT, Mr.Will wrote:
If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one.... The pixel dimensions you want are primarily determined by how someone will view your images. If they're always going to be viewed on a 800x600 computer screen, there is no point in making the image pixel size bigger than that. On the other hand, if the images are going to be printed in high quality, you should plan on 100-300 pixels per inch of printed size. (This wide range reflects differing opinions on this). Once you have determined the pixel dimensions, the file size will be determined by the amount of detail in each image and by the JPEG compression level (or inversely the quality setting). [In tests I conducted on photo images with the same pixel dimensions and the same JPEG compression level, file sizes vary over a range of more than 3-to-1, depending on the detail present in the images.] Sounds like you could use a versatile image resizer that will automatically figure out what JPEG compression level is needed to achieve your desired file size. Suggest you try the link below. Peter -- ================================================== ======= Need to resize images for email attachments or web pages? Try Jpeg Sizer at: http://www.tangotools.com?s=ng ================================================== ======= |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:29:09 GMT, Mr.Will wrote:
If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one.... The pixel dimensions you want are primarily determined by how someone will view your images. If they're always going to be viewed on a 800x600 computer screen, there is no point in making the image pixel size bigger than that. On the other hand, if the images are going to be printed in high quality, you should plan on 100-300 pixels per inch of printed size. (This wide range reflects differing opinions on this). Once you have determined the pixel dimensions, the file size will be determined by the amount of detail in each image and by the JPEG compression level (or inversely the quality setting). [In tests I conducted on photo images with the same pixel dimensions and the same JPEG compression level, file sizes vary over a range of more than 3-to-1, depending on the detail present in the images.] Sounds like you could use a versatile image resizer that will automatically figure out what JPEG compression level is needed to achieve your desired file size. Suggest you try the link below. Peter -- ================================================== ======= Need to resize images for email attachments or web pages? Try Jpeg Sizer at: http://www.tangotools.com?s=ng ================================================== ======= |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:29:09 GMT, "Mr.Will" wrote:
Heya guys, If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one. First - you need to know what dimensions are needed, not the file size... Once you know that, you can worry about the file size... But generally speaking, for the Internet, you decrease file size by increasing the compression of the image. This is because Internet images are usually just for viewing, and not blowing up or printing, therefore you can get away with huge compressions. On my own web site, I re-size to 1024x680 or so, to fit the biggest screen, and then I compress to an average 125k bytes. The originals are 3m, 3000x2000.... I use Micrografx software but Photoshop has a 'quality' option in saving as well. You need to manipulate both the image size and image compression to achieve the results you want. Problem is, with photoshop I arent entirely sure what is the best way of achieving this file size, or how to calculate it without saving as a different filename and previewing using the "properties" of the image icon. If I reduce resolution this brings down the file size, as does reducing the image dimensions (pixels) as does compressing. Which would you reccomend as the best method? I notice photoshop has THREE maximum settings (10,11,12). Also I arent entirely sure how much of each does to the filesize. For instance I started with a 3 mb file, I reduced it in size and saved it, and the file, despite being smaller was now 3.5 mb!!! Any light ANYONE can shed will be most appreciated. Mr.Will |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:29:09 GMT, "Mr.Will" wrote:
Heya guys, If anyone can offer me some science on the matter I'd be most grateful. I am taking shots at high jpeg setting on my Canon d60. These files come out between 3 and 4 Mb. The people that want the photos want the size to be no bigger than 2mb so that their server can handle each one. First - you need to know what dimensions are needed, not the file size... Once you know that, you can worry about the file size... But generally speaking, for the Internet, you decrease file size by increasing the compression of the image. This is because Internet images are usually just for viewing, and not blowing up or printing, therefore you can get away with huge compressions. On my own web site, I re-size to 1024x680 or so, to fit the biggest screen, and then I compress to an average 125k bytes. The originals are 3m, 3000x2000.... I use Micrografx software but Photoshop has a 'quality' option in saving as well. You need to manipulate both the image size and image compression to achieve the results you want. Problem is, with photoshop I arent entirely sure what is the best way of achieving this file size, or how to calculate it without saving as a different filename and previewing using the "properties" of the image icon. If I reduce resolution this brings down the file size, as does reducing the image dimensions (pixels) as does compressing. Which would you reccomend as the best method? I notice photoshop has THREE maximum settings (10,11,12). Also I arent entirely sure how much of each does to the filesize. For instance I started with a 3 mb file, I reduced it in size and saved it, and the file, despite being smaller was now 3.5 mb!!! Any light ANYONE can shed will be most appreciated. Mr.Will |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Not Dick Daley
writes Snipped... It's best likened to developing an 8X10 of a photo that was shot at 100 ISO, to doing the same picture 8X10 of a photo using 800 ISO. Really? I always thought that the higher ISO introduced noise and not artefacts, but that it did not reduce resolution. In answer to the OP, I'd suggest that it's best to shoot at max resolution (pixels) and minimum compression, then to resample to the size that you require in your photo editing software. -- Tony Morgan http://www.camcord.info |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Not Dick Daley
writes Snipped... It's best likened to developing an 8X10 of a photo that was shot at 100 ISO, to doing the same picture 8X10 of a photo using 800 ISO. Really? I always thought that the higher ISO introduced noise and not artefacts, but that it did not reduce resolution. In answer to the OP, I'd suggest that it's best to shoot at max resolution (pixels) and minimum compression, then to resample to the size that you require in your photo editing software. -- Tony Morgan http://www.camcord.info |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Bob
writes But generally speaking, for the Internet, you decrease file size by increasing the compression of the image. Do so with great care. Increasing compression introduces artefacts. And never resize (again it introduces artefacts), but rather resample to size. -- Tony Morgan http://www.camcord.info |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Picture Size vs Resolution? | JethroUK© | Digital Photography | 23 | August 14th 04 08:00 PM |
Minimum pixel size | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 65 | August 2nd 04 11:26 PM |
JPEG Questions: Loss In Quality When "Saving" | Xtx99 | General Photography Techniques | 3 | April 8th 04 04:25 PM |