Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Image sizes for [SI]

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Image sizes for [SI]

 
 
NM5K
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2011
On 9/11/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
..
>
> Here is one (almost picked at random) which helps illustrate the
> point: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2.jpg is really a
> photograph of a man fishing from a small red boat. This is the
> original (taken with a D70) with a JPG of 3.98 MB (2000 x 3008 MB).
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg is the same
> photograph reduced to 450 x 676 and 302kB.
>
> In my opinion the loss of detail in the smaller photograph causes it
> lose the impact present in the larger photograph. I'm not advocating a
> 4MB file size but I do want to make the point that reducing the file
> size does take something away from the original image.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
>
>
> PS. The boat is actually plain weather-beaten aluminium. In
> post-processing I painted it red to make it stand out more in the
> photograph.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


In some ways I tend to agree. You do lose some detail when
downsizing. No way to escape it..
But.. I think you could get a little more bang for the buck
as far as your downsizing. For that small second shot, it's
a pretty large file size for what you get out of it.
And a good bit of detail has been lost. I bet you did no
sharpening to the downsized image for one thing.
I've found adding a little sharpening goes a long way to
retaining a crisp look when using a smaller file size.
Sure, it causes some artifacts, but when looking at the
whole image and not pixel peeping, it's usually not a
major problem. With the way I downsize, I can get a good
bit larger image for the same file size, than the example
you've shown.
It's lost some detail vs the original, but not massively
so.
As an example..
Which would you rather look at.
Yours at that pretty small 450 x 676 size..
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg

Or this one which is 837x1260, and actually using a
slightly smaller file "283k" than the one you posted..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/boat50-4.jpg

Sure, it's not perfect, but I think a tad more efficient
at keeping the impact of the original. Yes, I did sharpen it
just a tad, and also bumped the saturation a tad, as the
conversion using my program took a bit of color out for some
reason.
When I load a large image into the browser and then click the
"-" to make it fit full screen, it tends to sharpen the image
almost like using a sharpener in an edit program.
With my smaller version, you see less of that, so not quite as
sharp as the original in that view. But.. I think it looks sharper
than the small image you converted to.
I think you could probably use a bit more jpg compression than
you presently are, and still keep a pretty decent, but larger
downsized image.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2011
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:13:01 -0500, NM5K <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 9/11/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
: .
: >
: > Here is one (almost picked at random) which helps illustrate the
: > point: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2.jpg is really a
: > photograph of a man fishing from a small red boat. This is the
: > original (taken with a D70) with a JPG of 3.98 MB (2000 x 3008 MB).
: >
: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg is the same
: > photograph reduced to 450 x 676 and 302kB.
: >
: > In my opinion the loss of detail in the smaller photograph causes it
: > lose the impact present in the larger photograph. I'm not advocating a
: > 4MB file size but I do want to make the point that reducing the file
: > size does take something away from the original image.
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > Eric Stevens
: >
: >
: > PS. The boat is actually plain weather-beaten aluminium. In
: > post-processing I painted it red to make it stand out more in the
: > photograph.
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > Eric Stevens
:
: In some ways I tend to agree. You do lose some detail when
: downsizing. No way to escape it..
: But.. I think you could get a little more bang for the buck
: as far as your downsizing. For that small second shot, it's
: a pretty large file size for what you get out of it.
: And a good bit of detail has been lost. I bet you did no
: sharpening to the downsized image for one thing.
: I've found adding a little sharpening goes a long way to
: retaining a crisp look when using a smaller file size.
: Sure, it causes some artifacts, but when looking at the
: whole image and not pixel peeping, it's usually not a
: major problem. With the way I downsize, I can get a good
: bit larger image for the same file size, than the example
: you've shown.
: It's lost some detail vs the original, but not massively
: so.
: As an example..
: Which would you rather look at.
: Yours at that pretty small 450 x 676 size..
: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg
:
: Or this one which is 837x1260, and actually using a
: slightly smaller file "283k" than the one you posted..
: http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/boat50-4.jpg

I think I prefer the original. The sharpening in the doctored picture makes
the bare twigs on the trees far more luminous than they would be in real life,
and I find that distracting. Remember, you're supposed to notice the boat.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NM5K
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2011
On 9/11/2011 11:33 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:13:01 -0500, NM5K<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>
> I think I prefer the original. The sharpening in the doctored picture makes
> the bare twigs on the trees far more luminous than they would be in real life,
> and I find that distracting. Remember, you're supposed to notice the boat.
>
> Bob


When I size his large image to fit the screen, and also the one I did,
to where they look the same size, I actually notice more of that with
his image than mine. The large one ends up more "crinkly" around the
twigs, etc..
But maybe that is a quirk of the resolution I'm using, or the browser.
Like I say, there is something that seems to add sharpening when
viewing with the browser, and the result is almost the exactly the same
as using sharpening in a edit program. I've noticed some view programs
do that too. It only does it when you fit the image to the screen so
you can see all of it.
I was just trying to get close to the sharpness you see when you
fit his original image to screen size. If you left out the sharpening,
that would make the file size even smaller, and you could use less
compression to stay under 300k. But to me, his small size image seemed
pretty flat and not very sharp looking. Or at least compared to the
original. That's why I added a little sharpening, as the lack of
crispness seemed to maybe be one of his complaints. But maybe not..
I could use less, or a different method, and maybe have it come out
better. That was just a quicky re-size using my Sony software.
I guess my main point was I think he could come out with a bigger
re-sized image that would be usable, and still stay under 300k.
The one he did was pretty small for a 300k image, kind of like he
was using little or no compression.






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Win 7 changing font sizes without icon sizes? why? Computer Support 0 03-21-2010 11:32 AM
Re: Win 7 changing font sizes without icon sizes? why? Computer Support 0 03-21-2010 11:31 AM
The File Sizes of Pictures on my CDs Increased to Unreadable Sizes Marful Computer Support 11 03-08-2006 07:13 PM
Firefox doesn't change image sizes when zooming Markus Dehmann Firefox 3 02-19-2005 07:46 AM
Different image sizes - 464 KB to 1941 KB from the same setting zxcvar Digital Photography 2 05-12-2004 03:13 AM



Advertisments