Processing File Size
Am trying to Process a load of files as 144 x 144 pixel JPEGs. I've set the Scale as Width x Height and this is 144 x 144 px. JPEG quality is set to 50 and according to the process summary this should make the file size approx 11kb, except when I process it they come out as a whopping 420kb! I've just tried the same in Lightroom and the file size is a much more reasonable 29kb. Anyone got any ideas what's wrong?
Am using 7.1.6 and OS X 10.8.5
Am using 7.1.6 and OS X 10.8.5
0
-
You will find a lot of metadata in the image files. If you use exiftool, you can see a list of that metadata. It includes color profile data, thumbnail, and so on, at least on my Mac. When I use exiftool to remove the metadata, it goes from +-400kb down to +-20kb. But make sure to have sRGB, otherwise their color will look wrong.
You can use exiftool in a folder, processing all jpeg images in there:
' exiftool -all= *.jpg '
or processing a file:
' exiftool -all= <FILENAME> '0 -
Thanks for the explanation - I'm still not sure why the Process summary says that the file will be way smaller than it actually is - it seems a pointless thing altogether. Looks like that's yet another thing I still have to use Lightroom for, which is very frustrating. 0 -
I don't have Lightroom, so I cannot check it's files for what they include or not. Maybe I'll ask some friends for examples to do so.
I'm not sure why there is that difference. It seems that C1 neglects the size of the metadata in the value it gives. The announced size is a pretty good estimation of the pure image data size.
Currently I am using exiftool before I put images online. It can read, write, edit and erase the content of any metadata, including C1 and PS stuff.0 -
You decide how much meta-data goes into the file. Check Process Recipe Tool -> Metadata 0 -
I tired that as well Christian - I unchecked all but the Copyright metadata but the files were still over 400kb.
According to the Exif Tool web site some manufacturers fill the empty blocks with zeroes which still get stored with the files and adds to the files size, which might be what is happening here, although it is implied that this is a camera manufacturer issue rather than a software processing issue.0 -
[quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
You decide how much meta-data goes into the file. Check Process Recipe Tool -> Metadata
True, but you cannot choose not to include thumbnails, color profile, etc. And C1 adds that information also to a non-RAW image that has no metadata included at all. So it cannot be a camera manufacturer issue.
I can give a list of metadata includes, but only if somebody is interested. It is about 60 entries that C1 creates when you choose not to add anything from the Process Recipe.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to include a color profile and a thumbnail. Maybe LR drops it for sRGB, because sRGB is always used by any software I know if no profile is given. And Gimp allows you to choose whether you want to save a thumbnail in the metadata or not. But there is a significant difference between what C1 estimates and what you really get. And LR files are smaller, obviously. I sometimes remove that metadata, too, but only for specific purposes.0 -
Update
With my latest findings, I partially have to correct statements from above.
I copied some files to a USB stick and looked at it on my linux computer.
There are 22kB in the testfile.jpeg file and 390kB in the hidden ._testfile.jpg.
This sums up to 412kB.
Most of the overhead seems to be put into the Mac's file system. What and why? Exiftool seems to remove it, too.0 -
It should be a more appropriate size (for really small jpegs) if you exclude the "create thumbnail on save" option in the process advanced options... 0 -
[quote="Jim_DK" wrote:
It should be a more appropriate size (for really small jpegs) if you exclude the "create thumbnail on save" option in the process advanced options...
Jim,
I can't see this option anywhere and so far the only (rather vague) reference to it that I have found searching is in the on-line help for V6.
Is this a Mac only thing? (I'm on a Windows machine.)
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="Jim_DK" wrote:
It should be a more appropriate size (for really small jpegs) if you exclude the "create thumbnail on save" option in the process advanced options...
I can't see this option anywhere and so far the only (rather vague) reference to it that I have found searching is in the on-line help for V6.
Is this a Mac only thing? (I'm on a Windows machine.)
Yes, Mac only as it is an OS X feature.0 -
Thanks Jim, that has made a huge difference to the file size. It's a shame the Process Summary doesn't reflect the options selected when calculating the file size, so I might file a request for it to do so. 0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="Jim_DK" wrote:
It should be a more appropriate size (for really small jpegs) if you exclude the "create thumbnail on save" option in the process advanced options...
I can't see this option anywhere and so far the only (rather vague) reference to it that I have found searching is in the on-line help for V6.
Is this a Mac only thing? (I'm on a Windows machine.)
Yes, Mac only as it is an OS X feature.
Thanks Paul.
I may have missed the best pages of Help for understanding the function - these OS based differences are normally pointed out in the supporting documents as I recall.
Grant0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Is this a Mac only thing? (I'm on a Windows machine.)
Yes, Mac only as it is an OS X feature.
The feature is available in some Windows imaging applications. Thus it must be a design decision made by PhaseOne not to include it in CO7 for Windows.
Cheers,
Mogens0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
13 Kommentare