Why is the JPEG file size small compared to other editing software
Any idea why CO 20 Express edition for Fujifilm exports RAW to JPEG that are smaller in size compared to other apps. Even at 100% quality, the size is only about 8 MB where as other apps product JPEGs that are above 20 MB.
-
What is the size in pixels of the original raw file?
Ian
0 -
That's an interesting question.
Normally people are asking why the jpgs that are output from C1 are so large compared with other applications.
0 -
2944 x 4416 (13 MP)
0 -
The same here. Canon 5DS 50Mp. E.g. Capture One 46,2 MB, DxO 57,2 MB.
0 -
I just tried cropping a NEF raw file to 2944 x 4416, and processing it as a JPG at 100% quality, which comes out as 10.6 MB.
Ian
0 -
It is the contents of the picture and the process which determine the output result in MB. But the problem here is, why delivers CO less MB for the same image than other converters?
Regards Willy
0 -
Even I am trying to find an answer to that. For my basic edits, I use a s/w called FastStone (supports Fuji RAW) which is very good...clone/heal is very good, has most of the basic features and watermarking also is available. If you compare FastStone with CO output with similar edits, the output from FastStone is better than CO. And FREE as well. Even that produces JPEGs that are bigger than CO.
I have also observed that if you open the JPEG from CO in DxO (for any selective editing, as I only have the express edition of CO and has no support) and save as JPEG, the file size increases.
I am ok with the smaller size of CO JPEG if the image quality is on par with others..I don't mind any other embedded info that is missing in CO. That way smaller size is better right.
0 -
You should avoid editing a jpg. If you can start from raw, or any other lossless format, then avoid jpg in your workflow until the very last output step.
E.g, transfer a 16 bit tiff from C1 to DXO, do your final edits there and export to jpg finally. Of cousrse only if jpg is the targeted format.
Reason is that every single saving, jpeg streams can deteriorate, even if you only crop.
To the question of file size: files with jpg extension are not only having the jpeg image stream, but are containers which can hold metadata like exif, itpc, xmp, preview thumbnail small or preview thumbnail big, icc profile, etc.
Personally I do not bother with the file size different applications generate. As long as the image looks good and the functionality I want is supported (e.g. a certain exif tag) I am fine.
regards
0 -
Btw, regarding size of the jpeg stream (which is the image part of the jpg container): the jpeg compression algorithm, to my knowledge, works with differences between adjacent pixels, and frequency separation, and the higher frequencies (read: details, noise, sharpening) obviously need more space because more information needs to be coded. Try the following example in C1:
Take a noisy image, turn down color and luminance NR, export to jpg 100% quality and size. Then again, export with default NR settings. I have an image 24MP, with jpg file size difference 9.7 MB vs. 6.2 MB. Similar difference with oversharpening. So, if you are using the same application the more details/noise is in your image the bigger the file size.
I do not know if we can conclude that the "other" application with higher file size has more details or more noise than C1 exports though. I do not know enough about the implementation of jpeg compression, do they differ, or can they even differ, in different applications. The information in the internet is either too high level, or too detailed for me to understand to answer this question.
But as said, I am really only interested in the actual output which can be seen on screen.
regards
0 -
Thanks BeO. I personally have not liked CO yet. Perhaps it is because the express edition has limited functionalities and secondly, in my experience, editing JPEG in DxO in saving it again has offered better looking images. I still miss the PRIME noise reduction (if you have not experienced it, I can't explain how magical that feature is).
So as per your advice, I just opened the RAW in CO and went to Image->Edit With->DxO (using TIFF as the option) and then save as JPEG. The image was saved with 22.5 MB file size. The same RAW directly saved as JPEG with CO was only 17.xx MB.
I will assume that the extra 5 MB or so is not improving the resolution in any way. But for me the image looks much better with minimal edits and if required the selective edits with Local Adjustments in DxO is such a great feature.
0 -
Ok BeO, will try what you said in some time. I am still not sure why though, found this difference still -
RAW opened in CO->DxO (TIFF)->Saved as TIFF (150 MB)->Opened in FastStone (to add a watermark) resulted in a JPEG 21.5 MB in size.
Same RAW opened in FastStone ->Saved as JPEG with watermark resulted in a JPEG 22.9 MB in size.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
11 comments