DPP 3.7.1.1 isn't converting and saving .jps like it used to

This is somewhat odd so I suspect it's something I'm doing different but I can't discover what. I converted and saved many CR2 images in October and most came out to approximately 2 MB in size. I use the 7D and the 50D. I just returned from 11 days in Central FL and the first images I processed came out to 6 MB in size! I didn't like having images as big as 2 MB since I upload them to flickr but I decided to live with it because DPP is easier and quicker to use than my other photo software which provides 1 MB images. I went back to an image from October and processed it again with DPP and it came out to 6 MB even though it was 2 MB in October. I haven't changed any settings that I know of. The image quality is set to 1 with 72 dpi. I'm stumped.

Jpgs with a lot of detail will be bigger, jpgs with areas of solid color will be small. Sharp jpgs will have more visible detail and be bigger. High ISO jpgs will have noise that is considered detail by the jpg compression and will be bigger.

tzalman wrote in post #11781622
Jpgs with a lot of detail will be bigger, jpgs with areas of solid color will be small. Sharp jpgs will have more visible detail and be bigger. High ISO jpgs will have noise that is considered detail by the jpg compression and will be bigger.

Thanks for your prompt response tzalman. What you say is very interesting however it doesn't explain this:

"I went back to an image from October and processed it again with DPP and it came out to 6 MB even though it was 2 MB in October. I haven't changed any settings that I know of." I'm still stumped.

You can end up with whatever size you want, it depends on your pixel resolution and you jpeg Quality setting (dpi setting has nothing to do with it).

I don't know what your old setting for Flickr were, so here's a way to get started on a "medium size" image:

Open the Convert and Save Dialog. In the Resize settings section, check the Resize and the Lock aspect ration options. Then in the box for either height or width (you can choose maybe the widest dimension if you want to keep the display size not so tall) just type in "1024" and make sure the Units are set to Pixels.

Then, up in the Quality setting, set the Quality to 7. Then Save.

Find the new file in your browser (or do a DPP Info on the new jpeg) and you should see a file size of less than 1MP or so.

Did you install any updates from October to now? Did the image quality slider get moved in the export screen? that will make a big difference in size

This 2.2 MB image, http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157625243198717/, was processed in the same way as this 6.2 MB image: http://www.flickr.com …/80431173@N00/5​417229228/. That's when I first noticed the difference. Both images are full sized 5184 x 3456 images. I processed the first image again and this time it came out as nearly 6 MB. Tonylong I realize that making an image smaller will also make the file size smaller. Zrock I don't recall if I upgraded or not. I probably didn't since there would have been no reason to do so. As I stated in my original posting, the image quality slider is set to one.

Hmm, it's odd that the first image would go to 6MB if you set the Quality to 1 -- there seems to be a lot of compressible data in that image. It would seem like you had a setting way off, but it's hard to say what, since you seem to be working with the stuff.

Yeh Tony, it seems very odd. I keep thinking there is some obscure setting or procedure that I'm overlooking somewhere but I can't find anything. The software doesn't seem to be that complicated.

Its pretty obvious to me. the 1840 image is using LR3 2010 processing which is much noisier and the image is in focus and has detail in the blades of grass. It looks like almost zero noise reduction was used in LR and a decent amount of sharpening.

The 3172 image is out of focus and looks like its using LR2 older processing format. It seems to have a decent amount of noise reduction applied. Therefore I would expect it to be quite a bit smaller.

When you reprocessed the image you likely used the 2010 LR3 processing which is noisier by default but the noise reduction is superior. However, since it appears you aren't using much or any NR then the new processing will be harder to compress.

Well Sdiver2489, there is just one problem with your theory. I don't have Light Room in any version. As I state in the subject line:

"DPP 3.7.1.1 isn't converting and saving .jpgs like it used to"

grafxman wrote in post #11782927
Well Sdiver2489, there is just one problem with your theory. I don't have Light Room in any version. As I state in the subject line:

"DPP 3.7.1.1 isn't converting and saving .jpgs like it used to"

My apologies, you don't happen to have photoshop do you?

Regardless, my point stands, one image that is 6MB is in focus and has very little noise reduction. The 2MB image is out of focus and has some noise reduction applied. You can easily see this.

I don't know if Canon has changed its RAW rendering at any point but its pretty apparent what causes the difference between the two.

As I stated in a previous posting here, I processed the first image again and this time it came out to 6 MB whereas in October it came out at 2 MB.

grafxman wrote in post #11782999
As I stated in a previous posting here, I processed the first image again and this time it came out to 6 MB whereas in October it came out at 2 MB.

Then upload it so I can take a look at it

grafxman wrote in post #11782999
As I stated in a previous posting here, I processed the first image again and this time it came out to 6 MB whereas in October it came out at 2 MB.

Well, pretty strange if you're sure you had your Quality setting to 1. I just did quick conversions of a couple Raw files with varying amounts of detail and they both bounced around 1 meg. Now the two variables I can think of between yours and mine are 1) I shot with a 10MP 1D3 whereas you have a newer higher res camera and 2) I noticed with C&S I had the "embed metadata" option turned off, but that certainly won't add 5MPs to a jpeg!

Maybe if you upload your Raw file to something like YouSendIt.com we could take a look at it and maybe come up with something but I still think there must be a setting you're missing somewhere, I just wouldn't have a clue where.

Just out of curiosity I cropped a 5D2 file down to 7D size, 5180x3453 pixels - the shot below which has a better than average amount of detail but minimal noise, being ISO 200. Sharpening 5, no NR, Quality 1, profile embedded. The result, 3.2 MB. So I'd think that 2 MB was probably right and the question remains unanswered, why 6 MB now?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.