Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9  (Read 2160 times)

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« on: November 05, 2016, 11:20:03 pm »

I'm trying to get small 900 long side jpegs for copyright registration.

I'm adjusting the recipe for srgb 900 px long side 8bit 70% quality and get an estimate of 130 kb.

But when I process it, the files are huge : 550 kb, almost five times as big.

I have tried and increased compression until the image was mush, but could never get anything below 550kb.

What is wrong with C1 9's image processing engine? In Photoshop I could easily create a good looking 130 kb file - why that file size bloat in C1 9?
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7581
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2016, 01:21:54 pm »

I'm trying to get small 900 long side jpegs for copyright registration.

I'm adjusting the recipe for srgb 900 px long side 8bit 70% quality and get an estimate of 130 kb.

But when I process it, the files are huge : 550 kb, almost five times as big.

I have tried and increased compression until the image was mush, but could never get anything below 550kb.

What is wrong with C1 9's image processing engine? In Photoshop I could easily create a good looking 130 kb file - why that file size bloat in C1 9?

Hi,

The estimated file size is probably not too accurate. The only sure way to 'predict' would be to actually compress, calculate size, compare to the goal, recompress with a better factor, etc.  But there is not a file size goal setting, just an estimate.

I just tested it on one of my own files, the estimate with 70% quality was 170 kb, and the actual file size became 95 kb, so much smaller. It probably depends a lot on the actual image content, how well it can be compressed.

If the image-size is your goal, then there are some applications that can do that, including ImageMagick (which uses that slow iterative approach to reach a given goal). If image quality is your goal, then I wouldn't look a file size to begin with. For a compromise, you could look at "JPEGmini", which attempts to use maximum compression with visually almost undetectable artifacts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JimDK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • Capture One - Made by Phase One
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2016, 03:50:40 pm »

In the file tab, try unchecking the "thumbnail on save" option in the recipe and reprocess.
Logged
Software Product Manager - Phase One A/S

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2016, 04:50:58 pm »

Well, I created full resolution files at around 3.2 mb size, and then two Photoshop actions, bringing them first to 1000 pixels, then 750 pixels, and got finally 80 - 150 kb 750 pixel sized images that were still good to look at.

I recently delivered files to a celebrity, and she wanted them all, so I had to register them all. With Capture One 9's poor compression algorithm for smaller files sizes the file sizes would just have been too much.

Strange enough, full resolution jpegs have a great files size and quality, only if you go below full resolution the compression doesn't work - the smaller the image the worse it gets. Even 600 pixel small images cannot be made smaller than 500 kilobytes (easy to do them at 70 to 80 kb in Photoshop if you watch it and still have no quality problems).

This would be one field of improvement for C1.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

David Grover / Phase One

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
    • Phase One
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2016, 05:24:08 pm »

Well, I created full resolution files at around 3.2 mb size, and then two Photoshop actions, bringing them first to 1000 pixels, then 750 pixels, and got finally 80 - 150 kb 750 pixel sized images that were still good to look at.

I recently delivered files to a celebrity, and she wanted them all, so I had to register them all. With Capture One 9's poor compression algorithm for smaller files sizes the file sizes would just have been too much.

Strange enough, full resolution jpegs have a great files size and quality, only if you go below full resolution the compression doesn't work - the smaller the image the worse it gets. Even 600 pixel small images cannot be made smaller than 500 kilobytes (easy to do them at 70 to 80 kb in Photoshop if you watch it and still have no quality problems).

This would be one field of improvement for C1.

See Jim's quote above.
Logged
David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.

mediumcool

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2016, 04:05:44 am »

A tardy reply, but this is my relevant workflow in macOS (2009 iMac running 10.11.6):

Import RAW into C1
Edit to taste
Export TIFF to Pixelmator at 896-px high—a tad smaller than my standard web export size (it’s increased to 900-px later)
Use layers if needed for compositing (incl. alpha channels if necessary)
Use Repair Tool if needed—it’s excellent!
Add two pixels all round via Canvas Size command (Command-Option-C)
Select All (Command-A)
Add two-pixel black stroke via Stroke command (Command-Shift-C)
Export as JPEG at 85% quality (Command-Shift-E)

I nowadays rent Photoshop but find Pixelmator much faster to use in general, and its JPEG engine—or Apple’s?—is superior to Adobe’s effort. Output files are smaller. I fire up Photoshop very occasionally for something exotic, but may well drop out of the program, because Lightroom is taking up space and getting a bit dusty!

Equivalent apps available for Windows may fill in for Pixelmator, but I love its speed and small JPEG output.
Logged
FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool

spassig

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2019, 07:52:06 am »

See Jim's quote above.

I learned today that COP isn't good or comfortable to compress pictures from RAW to JPG.
Photoshop make a better job.
Why is COP so bad?

Jochen
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7581
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2019, 10:54:02 am »

I learned today that COP isn't good or comfortable to compress pictures from RAW to JPG.
Photoshop make a better job.
Why is COP so bad?


Hi Jochen,

Besides the Thumbnail differences, one would have to analyze the metadata in the file header, and look at the actual JPEG compression settings used. Maybe C1 uses less lossy chroma compression? I don't know.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3993
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2019, 11:04:56 am »

I learned today that COP isn't good or comfortable to compress pictures from RAW to JPG.
Photoshop make a better job.
Why is COP so bad?

Jochen

It’s actually better than Photoshop. But the numerical scale is not the same.

Compare the file size and visual quality when you use a much lower number in c1 (eg 50).

spassig

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Huge file sizes when processing jpegs from c1 9
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2019, 11:40:43 am »

It’s actually better than Photoshop. But the numerical scale is not the same.

Compare the file size and visual quality when you use a much lower number in c1 (eg 50).

It would be a good workflow in sessions if I can see the exported file size in output subfolder.
Otherwise I must everytime go to finder in macOS X.

Jochen
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up