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 15 Jan 2010 (Friday) 11:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

file size difference between cs3 and DPP

 
brit84
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: BC, Canada
     
Jan 15, 2010 11:48 |  #1

Hello,
I would like to know why there is a big difference between the jpeg conersion file size of DPP and CS3. My 10mp files are generally in the 5-7 MB when converted from raw to jpeg with DPP, but are around 2-4MB when I use CS3. Both have output at 300dpi and maximum quality

Am I losing quality with cs3 or is it simply beign more efficient? Am i doing somthing wrong?

Thanks


5DIII/grip |5DII/grip | 40D/grip | 17-40L| 24-70L 2.8 II|70-200L IS f2.8 II | 580EXII x2 | Lensbaby composer | Benro 358 w/ Q3 | 2 Einsteins/Vagabond mini.
Facebook (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:01 |  #2

First off, DPI is utterly meaningless in this context. What compression level are you using in both programs? Assuming you're not resizing (changing the pixel dimensions), the compression level could have a big impact on the file size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,577 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 270
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:08 |  #3

It's been quite a while since I've used DPP but CSX allows quality levels from 1-12 (I didn't count "0"). Typically on my 5D I'll use level "10" for the files I send to the level which is about 90% quality level. It sounds like you are trying to make an apples to oranges comparison. As Gordon indicates, compression level is the key here ;).


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
siriusdogstar
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined May 2009
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:22 |  #4

another file size difference is caused by inclusion (or not) of ICC profile, and of EXIF information.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,577 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 270
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:36 |  #5

I can't talk intelligently of ICC, but I thought EXIF by default was contained in the RAW file?

siriusdogstar wrote in post #9399776 (external link)
another file size difference is caused by inclusion (or not) of ICC profile, and of EXIF information.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:45 |  #6

sapearl wrote in post #9399856 (external link)
I can't talk intelligently of ICC, but I thought EXIF by default was contained in the RAW file?

Correct, but if you strip it out when saving to JPG, you can save some file space(but not ~2-3MBs worth)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,577 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 270
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jan 15, 2010 13:48 |  #7

Ah! Totally forgot about that :rolleyes:. Thanks for clearing that up Evan. It's something I don't do so I never even thought of it.....

egordon99 wrote in post #9399918 (external link)
Correct, but if you strip it out when saving to JPG, you can save some file space(but not ~2-3MBs worth)


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
774 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jan 15, 2010 16:35 |  #8

This is a difficult subject. When converting an image in JPEG, there are usually 256 parameters and an important decision, which influance the size and quality of the output. The "quality" settings (a number from 1 to 10 with DPP, or 1 to 12 with Photoshop, or a percentage, or whatever) are totally arbitrary and not comparable between programs; they are only for the user interface.

Increasing the "quality" means increasing the file size compared to a lower "quality" setting of the same program. However, an image with higher file size created with one program is not necessarily better, than a smaller one created by another program. Even worse: the resulting quality depends on the image content as well; not all images require the same JPEG encoding level.

Perhaps the best is to create JPEGs from images with very fine details, straight lines, plain unicolored, untextured patches with different "quality" settings. Then open the JPEG images in Photoshop or whatever and look at the critical parts in 300%. (Note: saving and reopening the images is absulutely required, otherwise you see the original content without the JPEG degradation.)


Gabor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,987 posts
Likes: 361
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jan 15, 2010 16:43 |  #9

I could explain it, but it'd take too long. Don't worry about it as long as the images look good.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

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

880 views & 0 likes for this thread
file size difference between cs3 and DPP
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 Wuu
1017 guests, 351 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.