Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Newbie query on vanishing file size

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
H. Newton - 14 Jul 2005 07:08 GMT
Hi

Took pictures with my new digital camera using a 5 Megapixel setting.

Imported photos to computer via USB cable and ACDSee 2.0.  File sizes are
now around 1 MB shouldn't they be 5 MB each.

Then emailed copies to friends, inserted them into email using Outlook 2003.
Now file sizes in 'sent mail' are down to 300kb!

As both my friends and I have broadband, what I wanted to do is send maximum
quality files to them.

What went wrong?  Software making all sorts of decisions for me that I don't
yet know about?

Thanks for any info,

HN
Trev - 14 Jul 2005 10:16 GMT
> Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> HN

1) you used Jpeg as your image format. Jpeg is a lossy compression format

2) when you open the images. they will be decompressed and around the 5 mb
size .
When you save them again they will be compressed at whatever compression
rate is selected.Hence the even smaller file size.

http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/
Ronnie Sellar - 14 Jul 2005 10:46 GMT
>> Hi
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/

Actually a 5 megapixel camera should produce about a 15Mb file.  1 byte per
colour(red, green, blue) per pixel.
Mark Dunn - 14 Jul 2005 15:40 GMT
When compressed to jpeg, my 3mp images are about 600k. If you look at the
file properties when the picture is opened (uncompressed) in an editor, it
does indeed occupy about 10-15 times as much memory, about 8MB. Don't worry,
it took me a while to figure it out. If you have the option to save as RAW
or TIFF format, you'll see they are much bigger. But for everyday purposes
the compressed files are fine, and conveniently small to send and store.
I've even had them in print.

> >> Hi
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Actually a 5 megapixel camera should produce about a 15Mb file.  1 byte per
> colour(red, green, blue) per pixel.
Neil Barker - 14 Jul 2005 18:24 GMT
> you have the option to save as RAW
> or TIFF format, you'll see they are much bigger. But for everyday purposes
> the compressed files are fine, and conveniently small to send and store.
> I've even had them in print.

Errr, no big surprise there - there are thousands of such photos
printed daily in newspapers and magazines worldwide....

Signature

Neil Barker

Phil Null - 15 Jul 2005 07:05 GMT
>> you have the option to save as RAW
>> or TIFF format, you'll see they are much bigger. But for everyday
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Errr, no big surprise there - there are thousands of such photos
> printed daily in newspapers and magazines worldwide....

That's correct. In my experience, ALL pictures printed in magazines are
jpeg. That includes the top women's glossies. Usually the highest
quality/largest file size options are used. That still gives a huge size
reduction compared with TIFs etc. If the images weren't jpeg, most printers
and publishers could probably not handle the quantity of data that would be
required.

Take an average magazine. Count up the pics and their sizes. Assume the
resolution is around 300 dpi. Do the maths...

Or just assume that you would need to handle around 10 times as much data if
jpeg wasn't used...

Signature

Phil

Pb - 14 Jul 2005 21:37 GMT
<<Jpeg is a lossy compression format>>

<<When you save them again they will be compressed at whatever compression
rate is selected.Hence the even smaller file size.>>

Isn't it also true that opening the file, modifying it (including rotating
it) and then saving it again as JPEG will produce even more loss?

If I have to use JPEG when taking the image I always convert to TIFF or PSD
as soon as possible.

Paul

Signature

Paul ============}
o  o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and Gallery are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/ 

Martin Angove - 20 Aug 2005 19:56 GMT
> <<Jpeg is a lossy compression format>>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> If I have to use JPEG when taking the image I always convert to TIFF or PSD
> as soon as possible.

Each decode / encode cycle introduces more errors, so if you are doing
major editing on a jpeg the safest way is to convert to a lossless
format first, do the editing and any intermediate saves in that format
and then only produce a jpeg for final use. If storage permits, keep the
"finished" picture in a lossless format. It is possible to data-reduce a
picture without loss of information, though obviously the saving isn't
as great; a program which saves TIFF usually has the option to apply
some form of lossless compression to that file.

Having said that, it is possible to perform some (simple) operations on
the image in jpeg format *without* performing a decode/encode. Examples
of things possible are changing the pixel density, adding and removing
comments, optimising the compression parameters, converting to
greyscale, converting to progressive format, 90 degree rotations,
horizontal, vertical and diagonal flips, cropping and changing the
contrast and colour balance.

There is a cross-platform standard utility to perform these operations
by the Independent JPEG group called "jpegtran". Its functions are
likely to be built into most processing software, but you'll have to
know the specifics of your system. I use RISCOS ports of jpegtran called
"JCUT", "JSIZE" and "JCLEAN" among others.

Try also:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/
ftp://ftp.uu.net/graphics/jpeg/jpegsrc.v6b.tar.gz

Hwyl!

M.

Signature

Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
... If I were you, who'd be me?

Bandicoot - 16 Jul 2005 16:23 GMT
> Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> HN

Pixels != Bytes, so you shouldn't be expecting your initial file to be 5MB.
Actual file size will depend on the save format (and, if something like
JPEG, the level of compression) but a 5MP camera isn't inherently going to
give you 5MB files - these are two different things.

Other than that, did you save them as JPEGs, allowing more compression (and
image degradation) with each save?  If you want the best preservation of
original quality that is compatible with everyone being able to read the
file, keep the files as uncompressed TIFFs.

Peter
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.