User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  23
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Any chance of the file size being increased upwards from 400kb?

  1. #21
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    19,874
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd say that tonnes no, tons more sponsorship/advertising/general amount of finance is involved, but you'd have to ask them
    DPR for one is massive, and... isn't it owned by Amazon? (See no evil... - er, say no more)
    CC, Image editing OK.

  2. #22
    Big kid in the guise of an adult
    Threadstarter
    Bear Dale's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2009
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,173
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AM, but what is the benefit to the end user? If there's no benefit as stated above going over 400kb, why do a large majority of photo sites go massively over 400kb?

    I don't fully understand the rendering difference between two images being shown both at 1200px one at 2560kb and one at 400kb

    At Nikon Gear, images are 1200px (same as here) but they are 2560kb in size compared to our 400kb size, but the images appear bigger on my monitor than images here?

    I'm totally confused over this if anyone can dumb this down so I can understand the correlation between pixel length of an image and kb increase (and benefit?) it would be appreciated.




    - - - Updated - - -

    Edit: just to reiterate, please no one read this as me pushing for a larger file size for AP. I'm happy to enjoy AP as is, my original question was just a simple query, but I would like to know for my own information if anyone can shed any light on what I ask above.

    Cheers all
    Bear
    .
    Some of my Photos on Flickr here - Bear Dale
    Here is my FaceBook Page


  3. #23
    Ausphotography Regular John King's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jan 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,071
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear Dale View Post
    I'm totally confused over this if anyone can dumb this down so I can understand the correlation between pixel length of an image and kb increase (and benefit?) it would be appreciated.
    BD, it is really just higher compression that makes the same size image (in pixels) smaller in file size.

    If saving a JPEG, one usually has the option to save at 100% down to whatever. As one decreases the percentage size, the file size decreases and the quality decreases.
    Regards, john

    Galleries: https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/


    My galleries contain all sorts of stuff, not just some pretty pictures.

    ILCs: E-M1 MkII; E-M1; E-30; E-510; E-1
    Digital lenses: 14-42 EZ; 12-50 macro; f/4 12-100 Pro; 40-150R; f/4.8-6.7 75-300; f/1.8 25; f/2.8 25 pancake; f/2 50 macro; f/4 7~14; 11~22; 14~42; 14~45; 14~54 MkII; 40~150 MkI; 40~150 MkII; 50~200 MkI; EX-25; EC-14


  4. #24
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    19,874
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear Dale View Post
    AM, but what is the benefit to the end user? If there's no benefit as stated above going over 400kb, why do a large majority of photo sites go massively over 400kb?

    I don't fully understand the rendering difference between two images being shown both at 1200px one at 2560kb and one at 400kb

    At Nikon Gear, images are 1200px (same as here) but they are 2560kb in size compared to our 400kb size, but the images appear bigger on my monitor than images here?

    I'm totally confused over this if anyone can dumb this down so I can understand the correlation between pixel length of an image and kb increase (and benefit?) it would be appreciated.




    - - - Updated - - -

    Edit: just to reiterate, please no one read this as me pushing for a larger file size for AP. I'm happy to enjoy AP as is, my original question was just a simple query, but I would like to know for my own information if anyone can shed any light on what I ask above.

    Cheers all
    Hmm! - I'll try to answer your Qs point-by-point...
    First, of course there's a benefit of going over [any given file size like 400KB AND image size]:
    the bigger the dimensions of the file AND the less compression there is, the better the image
    quality you can present.

    Some sites can exceed the file limits of AP because they can/can afford the extra storage space
    required. I suppose it would come down to different economies of scale, to some extent.

    On the Q "...both at 1200px one at 2560kb and one at 400kb...", you could expect the latter file
    (at 400KB) to have a better tonal and color rendition than the one at 250KB. As JK pointed out,
    the smallerfile is more compressed. This often results in IQ loss. (Note: it may not if the tones/colors
    are fairly uniform.)

    "...At Nikon Gear, images are..." I am trying to imagine a jpeg that would be suitably rendered with such
    conditions. - Only some intricate fractal pattern comes to mind Maybe they could give a reason.

    "...correlation between pixel length of an image and kb increase..." A simple illustration might help. You can
    do it yourself, but going on size change alone and not compression change, then:

    Double the length (both sides, of course) of an image, and you will quadruple its area. The file size will increase
    and it may even quadruple as well. - That's with the compression left alone. It's not possible to be exact on the
    resulting file size, because it depends on what the picture is made up of. A simple geometric pattern on a plain
    background will behave quite differently during re-size/compressing that would an intricate scene.

    Well, that's about it that I can say. Others may add/correct/dismiss/put me in the stocks at lunchtime...

    - - - Updated - - -

    OK, so I just tried something...

    If you look at the pic in this post here, I just did a simple reduction in image size to
    50% of what I posted there. The compression was left the same for both images (Quality 9 in Photoshop).

    Here's the result (DSC...half.jpg is the re-sized one)...

    filesize.jpg
    Last edited by ameerat42; 15-08-2019 at 1:35pm.

  5. #25
    Big kid in the guise of an adult
    Threadstarter
    Bear Dale's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2009
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,173
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks JK and AM for the explanations and for shedding some light on something that I put my hand up (both hands!) and admit it confuses me.

    AM, just one note -

    On the Q "...both at 1200px one at 2560kb and one at 400kb...", you could expect the latter file
    (at 400KB) to have a better tonal and color rendition than the one at 250KB. As JK pointed out,
    the smallerfile is more compressed. This often results in IQ loss. (Note: it may not if the tones/colors
    are fairly uniform.)
    You say above the latter file (referring to the 400kb file) to have a better tonal and color rendition than the one at 250KB, but its not a 250kb file it would be a 2560kb file (10x the size) at the same pixel width.

  6. #26
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    19,874
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^Woops, you're right! I misread it from -ing. (Remind me to magnify the window.)

    Well, of course it's the reverse case: the 2560KB filesize limit would potentially afford a better
    quality image that the 400KB one.

    Additionally, please note update to Post #24, above.
    Last edited by ameerat42; 15-08-2019 at 3:41pm. Reason: Ixf ypto...

  7. #27
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,220
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    as you increase KB size you will get better image quality.

    JPG is a compression algorithm. it was originally designed to make photo files smaller to transmit over the internet when we had 56kb dialup internet connections (or slower). So JPG was designed to reduce the size of an image file by discarding bits of information from that file.

    So a 400kb JPG file and a 2000kb JPG file will have differences. Usually these will be seen as slightly better colour rendition with for example more slight variances in the shades of each colour, likely less artifacts along high contrast areas etc. But of you took a 1000 pixel wide image at 400kb and the same at 600kb you would likely have to zoom into pixel level (pixel peeping) to see the variances.

    Yes as the filesize gets larger, you will notice more.. also the same applies as you get smaller. You would see a lot of difference in a 40kb jpg and a 2000kb jpg of the same image at the same pixel size.

    However there is also a limit where your monitor, eyes etc cannot reproduce all the data within the image file. sRGB (jpg colour space) is no where near as big as say ProPhoto colourspace. Thus a jpg will never render the variances of colour that a ProPhoto image would.. but there is not a monitor available that can render 100% of the ProPhoto space anyway.

    Yes I could increase the KB size to say 1024 (1MB) but in most instances we would have to pixel peep to see any real difference over a 400kb jpg.

    As Am stated above DPReview etc all survive on being big, worldwide and often owned by huge companies, who can then profit off members, so money to support the sites are not really an issue.

    So I could ask, what is wrong with the filesizes we are using now, that restricts your enjoyment of other member's photos?
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  8. #28
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,220
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    and going back to your comparison with other sites.

    DPReview was originally setup as a gear review site. So it had larger file options as people would download RAW files from new DSLR to compare the image quality to their own gear. This was probably more important 10 years or more ago when the development of image sensors was leapfrogging to bigger and better things.

    Eg when the Nikon D200 (10.2mp) came out, people were downloading the sample raw files on DPR and going 'wow, check out the shadow detail I can recover', because the new sensor allowed something amazing over what existed before. 10.2MP..WOW!!!! Now our phone cameras have higher MP and can probably beat a D200 sensor in IQ.

    Since that time DPR got bought out by Amazon and monetized to link almost everything to an Amazon sale item. The reviews became more promotions and digital camera gear has matured. We no longer see the huge jumps in tech development we did in the past. But DPR maintained the large image file options because that is what their pedigree was about.

    So this gives you a background as to why some sites have huge filesize options and I hope that assists in understanding the logic behind offering those larger filesizes.
    Last edited by ricktas; 15-08-2019 at 7:04pm.

  9. #29
    I like my computer more than my camera farmmax's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Mar 2010
    Location
    Central West
    Posts
    2,378
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't want the photos any bigger in file size or dimensions. They are totally adequate as far as I'm concerned. No NBN here. I hate the ones loaded on Flickr because the forum loads the entire large file size, then when loaded, drops it down to a smaller version. I just skip threads where this happens now.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •