| 12:59 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
A digital video camera will take "photos" that are only 640 x 480 in size. A digital still camera usually takes much larger photos...
Check the actual pixel dimensions of the camera photos, and see if you can't shrink them down a bit before you compress them. That could help quite a bit.
| 1:59 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have already croped and reduced the size of the pics down to similar HxW pixels. The bloat has to be the extra camera settings info saved with the photos. Thanks for the feedback just the same.
| 2:19 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Photoshop will save with "exclude non image data"
| 4:21 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Interesting... let us know if "exclude non image data" does the trick.
| 4:25 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
well I certainly would let you know, trouble is I don't own Photoshop , use Ulead PhotoImpact.
| 5:12 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh. yes... that makes it a little different.
Hopefully, a PhotoImpact user will happen along soon... I've never used it myself, so I really couldn't help with software specific tricks.
| 9:47 am on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What dpi are the images ? 72dpi, 150dpi, 300dpi .... etc
I think but don't quote me that the sony uses 640*480 at 72dpi and a standard DC is switchable between 72 - 600dpi depending on the DC.
can you post the url and picture name and I will have a look.
Hey mivox possible candidate from a shrinkathon ;)
| 12:43 pm on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sometimes it's easier to find a workaround than to figure out the problem. Sloppy? Yes. The 'right way'? No. Effective? Yes.
Once you've scanned your image in, cropped it, and know the dimensions, create a blank canvas in Ulead PhotoImpact at 72 dpi - the same dimensions as the original image. Do a "select all" on your inbound scan, cut and paste into your blank canvas. Then "merge all objects", copy and paste into Smart Saver - and that should kill the bogus data associated with the originating image.
I know - it doesn't tell you why. But it gets around the problem until you figure out why.
| 5:39 pm on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for all the help, I've got a workaround - kind of convoluted - open my pic, then change the data format to say indexed 256 colors and save the file, then change it back to 24bit true color, then
save as another file name, that gets rid of the camera info and shrinks the file size back down to the area where they were before the digital camera was used, thanks again to all, great group, hope I can help someone sometime...Mike
here is a link to two images , one the old way and the other with new camera
| 9:45 pm on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You are lucky !!! I found 10 minute ago a software that you will fall in love with !!!
At this page: [tinyapps.org...] Look for JPG Cleaner.
This freeware will remove all non-image data.
In a collection of 635 JPG pictures I saved 987482 byte(s) in 0:00:50.
These image where collected from random website on the web.
With my Kodak DC200 digital still camera I save 20kbytes by picture !!!
I forgot to tell you that this tool work in batch and open directories recursively so no need to open, change setting, save, ...
| 7:12 pm on Feb 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hi nuspirit --
A 15k difference in size is not due to some extra textual information about the camera. That would be approximately 15 thousand characters. Even given 10 characters per word, that would be 1500 words with no compression. That's a mighty verbose camera description!
More likely, your new camera has a default setting for "highest quality" on its jpeg compression scheme, and your old camera probably used a lower setting. These quality settings are usually expressed as a percentage where 100 is the least amount of compression. Often a setting of 90 will cut the size down by half, and a setting of 60 will cut the size a lot more without compromising the quality of the image.
To fix your problem, just re-save the image with a lower setting. Here's how to do it in PhotoImpact: Open your large size image file. Then from the file menu, select "save-as". From the "save as type" drop down box select "jpeg". Click on the "options" button. This will bring up a dialog that lets you select the quality of the jpg image. Select something like 60 or 70. Then save your file. You'll find that the saved file has been reduced in size from about 20k to about 5k, and you won't be able to see a difference in quality.
Remember, that every time you save a file as a jpg, it loses some information, and eventually if you save and re-save the same file enough times, it will degrade. For that reason, it's a good idea to keep a master of important images, and do your saving on a copy.
| 9:28 pm on Feb 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I can assure you that my Kodak DC200 add 20K of unusefull data.
I'm sure that it's unusefull data because if it was something about compression with more or less quality loss, how would you explain that it's the same amount of data (20KBytes) that is removed from all the camera images ???
I made test on very different images and it's everytime the same amount of data that is removed ...
| 3:05 pm on Feb 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
quite a bit of time has gone by here, but
just wanted to say thank you for the tip
on the Jpeg Cleaner program, works like
a charm to get rid of the un-necessary
bloat about camera info. It was a great find
and very valuable to help and keep pages
fast loading even with several photos
per page. I think that this program strips
more than just the straight text count
which accounts for the extra KB savings
per image, it may have something to do with
how jpeg files are constructed / formated,
but this little utility program is extremely fast and efficient at producing a slimed down
image file. Thanks again and best of luck to you.
mike @ The Crystal Ball Inc.
| 4:43 am on Feb 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
nuspirit Ulead photoimpact is fine, do you have the jpeg and gif optimiser which comes with it as well?
>I can assure you that my Kodak DC200 add 20K of unusefull data.
nuspirit the difference may not be apparent when you view on screen at 72-90 dpi, but were you to print at 600dpi or higher you would see a big difference.
The difference is not explained by EXIF data, the small amount of info that the camera adds to the file to record your camera settings when you shot the image.
Copying and pasting the image into a new one within Photoimpact will loose this exif data anyhow.
What many people do is:
1. save the exif jpeg image from the camera and write protect it.
2. Open it in your editor and save it as a bmp or other lossless format, tweak and manipulate until you have what you nees, size, resolution, sharpness, levels etc then (if using Ulead Photoimpact) optimise as a jpeg (web jpeg smart saver) again perhaps using 80% Jpeg perhaps standard optimised and subsampling YUV411.
BTW I can take another 500 bytes off your images without loss of quality doing that.
The point is that your new camera has the ability to take much larger and possibly much sharper still images than your video cam used to take. This may not be always apparent on the computer screen.
If you have 2 images which are the same exact dimensions one can be significantly larger in byt size than the other especially if it is sharpenned either in ulead or in the camera. Test by adding a small amount of blur to your image or using the unsharp mask and see the resulting change to filesize.
In my opinion, whatever you are doing in the new little programme you could do in photoimpact.