Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 05 Nov 2007 (Monday) 21:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Confused on converted file size

 
lauderdalems
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Nov 05, 2007 21:15 |  #1

Depending on what software I convert raw to jpg I notices a big different in file size.

DPP give this pictures a jpg file 12,701 KB

DNG converter then Adobe Bridge gives me a jpg file 2,808 KB

Everything appears to be the same (dpi, dimensions, bit depth, color mode)

Why the different in jpg file size.

Thanks


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sfaust
Goldmember
Avatar
2,304 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2006
     
Nov 05, 2007 21:39 |  #2

lauderdalems wrote in post #4260556 (external link)
Everything appears to be the same (dpi, dimensions, bit depth, color mode)

I would question whether the above is really true. There is a huge difference between a 12MB and 2MB JPEG file. Something has changed, and I would go back and verify everything and see what changed.


Stephen
Commercial Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Nov 05, 2007 21:40 |  #3

lauderdalems wrote in post #4260556 (external link)
Depending on what software I convert raw to jpg I notices a big different in file size.

DPP give this pictures a jpg file 12,701 KB

DNG converter then Adobe Bridge gives me a jpg file 2,808 KB

Everything appears to be the same (dpi, dimensions, bit depth, color mode)

Why the different in jpg file size.

Thanks

What about the compression level?


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lauderdalems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Nov 05, 2007 22:41 as a reply to  @ cdifoto's post |  #4

From what little I understand, it must be in the compression and quality setting. But that is a BIG different in file size.


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gcogger
Goldmember
2,554 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
     
Nov 06, 2007 02:26 |  #5

There are 2 possibilities, and both may be having an effect.

- Is DPP set to generate 16 bit (per colour) images, and the Adobe software 8 bit images? This will immediately make the DPP images twice the size.

- The compression settings are different. This can make almost any amount of difference to an image size. You're looking at a roughly 4:1 size ratio, and that can very easily be explained by different compression ratios.


Graeme
My galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 542
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Nov 06, 2007 03:04 |  #6

The first thing to understand about saving to jpeg is that one thing is understood: you want to compress your image (and in the process throw away image data). You may not understand this, but by design jpeg conversion software does.

So, when you save a jpeg, the software you use will have certain default conversion/compression settings in place. If you are sure that you want to execute a new compressing of your image for, say the Web, then you need to carefully pick from your software's settings for your own purposes. Most Image software have setings such as quality/compression and give you some idea of what the outcome will be in other terms, such as file size.

I mostly use Lightroom to export pics for the Web, and it makes things pretty simple: it ensures that my images are converted to the sRGB color profile and I can constrain them to pixel dimensions: I prefer a maximum of width = 800 and height = 640. I don't need to worry about file size or other unknown quantities. And for Web viewing it's great. But, if I wanted to email a high-quality image to, say, a person who had a need to have a critically sharp view of a pic, then I would take a different approach (and tweak my image accordingly).

It's not all that complicated, just things to bear in mind!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,468 posts
Likes: 195
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Nov 06, 2007 05:13 |  #7

Every software designer makes a decision about what range of jpg compression he wants to offer. DPP, for instance, about a year ago when releasing a new version, changed the jpg compression so that the highest scale number produced much less compression (and consequently larger files) than in prevous versions. Moreover, the designer can make the scale numbers anything he wants. Some applications have 1-10, others have 1-12 or 1-100.

BTW, disregard the reference in a previous post to 16 bit vs. 8 bit since it is not relevent to your question. Jpgs can only be 8 bit.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gcogger
Goldmember
2,554 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
     
Nov 06, 2007 06:28 |  #8

tzalman wrote in post #4262420 (external link)
BTW, disregard the reference in a previous post to 16 bit vs. 8 bit since it is not relevent to your question. Jpgs can only be 8 bit.

:o:oops::o:oops::o

I'm an idiot - you are, of course, correct. :oops:


Graeme
My galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,195 views & 0 likes for this thread
Confused on converted file size
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kumarrahul123
1921 guests, 231 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.