Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:09 pm
|
|
|
i am now shooting JPEG photos, file size large, with my new (used) nikon D800. pics come out mostly fine so i almost never edit. however, due to the 36MP sensor, files come out around 17-20mb each.
if i go into microsoft paint, and just resave (same pixels, same everything, just CTL+S), the file size reduces to about 7mb. i would like to automate the process. is there a way to do this easily?
the manual method i use:
1) open about 6 pics at a time (on a laptop with limited processing power)
2) hit CTL+S to save picture
3) hit ALT+F4 to close picture
4) repeat steps 2&3 until all the way through that batch of pics
5) start over with step 1
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:27 pm
|
|
|
There is no reason to shoot a hi-rez jpg if you are just going to re-size it. Just shoot a medium jpg, or whatever gets about a 7mb file. If you want to save a higher rez file save a RAW file as well. Memory is cheap.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dalekz Member
Joined: 01 Mar 2002 Posts: 487 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Dalekz
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:28 pm
|
|
|
I use FastStone Photo Resizer from http://faststone.org/
You can bulk change the size of jpg's using % change or other methods (still keeping it at 100% jpg).
It is a free program
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:29 pm
|
|
|
AFAIK, when you save in MS Paint, there is no resolution loss. i am not changing the size of the photo either. all that's lost is the file size.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:44 pm
|
|
|
Whenever you save a smaller jpg you lose resolution.
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:45 pm
|
|
|
try it. then come and tell me that resolution was lost.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:19 pm
|
|
|
You are throwing information away. It's math and you can't get around it. That said the jpg algorithms are pretty good so maybe it isn't very noticeable which is the point. Also jpg's are only 8bit files which is one reason they are smaller. No free lunch.
edit: If you are just reducing to small jpg's then what's the point of the 800?
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:20 pm
|
|
|
try it out. let me know if you see a loss at 1000% resolution. i'm curious to see what you find.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:27 pm
|
|
|
iron wrote: | a loss at 1000% resolution. |
???
edit: read
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:28 pm
|
|
|
compare your original photo to a photo you simply save in MS Paint. then, zoom to 1000% and LMK what you see.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:35 pm
|
|
|
It's not that easy.
-what file type are you starting with
-what was the original compression
-what is the new compression
And this varies with the subject matter. e.g. a uniform blue sky can be easy to compress while a "busy" photo not so much.
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:37 pm
|
|
|
overcomplicating this.
take any single JPEG photo you have.
check file size
open in paint
save
check file size again
did it reduce file size? did it lose any details/resolution?
in any case, i don't care about these semantics since i am sure there is no discernible detail loss. i'm just trying to automate this specific process
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:41 pm
|
|
|
iron, mike is right. Just lower the jpeg quality in camera if you want lower size files. I can't imagine MS paint uses better jpeg compression algorithm than your D800. There might be other EXIF information in the jpeg such as embedded thumbnails, etc. you can probably tell your camera to leave out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:43 pm
|
|
|
OK suit yourself rather than inform. If you are happy with the result that's what matters.
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:46 pm
|
|
|
seriously, i'm curious to see what you find. can you do the example i just offered? take your high rez pic and your lowest rez pic and see what each gets you. i'm curious to see what you find. it'd be much more helpful to me than hypothesizing.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|