“Optimal” size of a JPEG image in terms of its dimensions
I plan to write a script that will scan 100,000+ JPEG images and re-compress them if they are "too big" in terms of file size. Scripting is the easy part, but I am not sure how to categorize an image as being "too big".
For example there is a 2400x600px image with a file size of 1.81MB. Photoshop's save for web command creates a 540KB file at 60 quality and same dimensions. This is about 29% of original size.
Now I am thinking about using these numbers as a guideline. Something like 540KB / (2,400 * 600 / 1,000,000) = 375KB per megapixel. Any image larger than this is considered big. Is this the correct approach or is there a better one?
Edit: the images need to be optimized for display on websites.
image-quality jpeg file-size
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I plan to write a script that will scan 100,000+ JPEG images and re-compress them if they are "too big" in terms of file size. Scripting is the easy part, but I am not sure how to categorize an image as being "too big".
For example there is a 2400x600px image with a file size of 1.81MB. Photoshop's save for web command creates a 540KB file at 60 quality and same dimensions. This is about 29% of original size.
Now I am thinking about using these numbers as a guideline. Something like 540KB / (2,400 * 600 / 1,000,000) = 375KB per megapixel. Any image larger than this is considered big. Is this the correct approach or is there a better one?
Edit: the images need to be optimized for display on websites.
image-quality jpeg file-size
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago
add a comment |
I plan to write a script that will scan 100,000+ JPEG images and re-compress them if they are "too big" in terms of file size. Scripting is the easy part, but I am not sure how to categorize an image as being "too big".
For example there is a 2400x600px image with a file size of 1.81MB. Photoshop's save for web command creates a 540KB file at 60 quality and same dimensions. This is about 29% of original size.
Now I am thinking about using these numbers as a guideline. Something like 540KB / (2,400 * 600 / 1,000,000) = 375KB per megapixel. Any image larger than this is considered big. Is this the correct approach or is there a better one?
Edit: the images need to be optimized for display on websites.
image-quality jpeg file-size
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I plan to write a script that will scan 100,000+ JPEG images and re-compress them if they are "too big" in terms of file size. Scripting is the easy part, but I am not sure how to categorize an image as being "too big".
For example there is a 2400x600px image with a file size of 1.81MB. Photoshop's save for web command creates a 540KB file at 60 quality and same dimensions. This is about 29% of original size.
Now I am thinking about using these numbers as a guideline. Something like 540KB / (2,400 * 600 / 1,000,000) = 375KB per megapixel. Any image larger than this is considered big. Is this the correct approach or is there a better one?
Edit: the images need to be optimized for display on websites.
image-quality jpeg file-size
image-quality jpeg file-size
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
asked 2 hours ago
Salman ASalman A
1063
1063
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Salman A is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago
add a comment |
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No. This is a wrong approach.
File size in pixels, yes, has something to do with the final weight, but it is not the only factor.
Make a test. Take a completely white file of the same 2400x600px, and save it as JPG.
Now take a photo of a forest (same 2400x600px) with lots of details and save it. This file will be larger using the same compression settings.
The final size depends on these 3 factors:
- Pixel Size
- Compression settings
- Content (Detail and complexity of the image)
So you can not and should not define the weight based on pixel size.
But I understand your problem.
Without analyzing the current compression of the image, it is hard to define the "optimal" weight (which is relative to the observer, or usage of the images)
You probably can define a compression setting and recompress "all of them". I don't know if you want to do that before "uploading", which probably will save you more time than the saved skipping some of them.
There are some tools that analyze an image and calculates the current compression ratio. But I doubt it is that important.
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
add a comment |
The size of files compressed with JPEG vary depending on the complexity of the image. Trying the control the file sizes the way you describe will result in highly variable perceived image quality.
Just use a quality setting that you find acceptable, like 75. Compare the size of the result with the original image, and keep the smaller file. See What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
Or consider using a JPEG minimizer, like JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive. They are essentially designed to do what you seem to be trying to do, but with more awareness of JPEG algorithm internals.
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Salman A is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104118%2foptimal-size-of-a-jpeg-image-in-terms-of-its-dimensions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. This is a wrong approach.
File size in pixels, yes, has something to do with the final weight, but it is not the only factor.
Make a test. Take a completely white file of the same 2400x600px, and save it as JPG.
Now take a photo of a forest (same 2400x600px) with lots of details and save it. This file will be larger using the same compression settings.
The final size depends on these 3 factors:
- Pixel Size
- Compression settings
- Content (Detail and complexity of the image)
So you can not and should not define the weight based on pixel size.
But I understand your problem.
Without analyzing the current compression of the image, it is hard to define the "optimal" weight (which is relative to the observer, or usage of the images)
You probably can define a compression setting and recompress "all of them". I don't know if you want to do that before "uploading", which probably will save you more time than the saved skipping some of them.
There are some tools that analyze an image and calculates the current compression ratio. But I doubt it is that important.
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
add a comment |
No. This is a wrong approach.
File size in pixels, yes, has something to do with the final weight, but it is not the only factor.
Make a test. Take a completely white file of the same 2400x600px, and save it as JPG.
Now take a photo of a forest (same 2400x600px) with lots of details and save it. This file will be larger using the same compression settings.
The final size depends on these 3 factors:
- Pixel Size
- Compression settings
- Content (Detail and complexity of the image)
So you can not and should not define the weight based on pixel size.
But I understand your problem.
Without analyzing the current compression of the image, it is hard to define the "optimal" weight (which is relative to the observer, or usage of the images)
You probably can define a compression setting and recompress "all of them". I don't know if you want to do that before "uploading", which probably will save you more time than the saved skipping some of them.
There are some tools that analyze an image and calculates the current compression ratio. But I doubt it is that important.
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
add a comment |
No. This is a wrong approach.
File size in pixels, yes, has something to do with the final weight, but it is not the only factor.
Make a test. Take a completely white file of the same 2400x600px, and save it as JPG.
Now take a photo of a forest (same 2400x600px) with lots of details and save it. This file will be larger using the same compression settings.
The final size depends on these 3 factors:
- Pixel Size
- Compression settings
- Content (Detail and complexity of the image)
So you can not and should not define the weight based on pixel size.
But I understand your problem.
Without analyzing the current compression of the image, it is hard to define the "optimal" weight (which is relative to the observer, or usage of the images)
You probably can define a compression setting and recompress "all of them". I don't know if you want to do that before "uploading", which probably will save you more time than the saved skipping some of them.
There are some tools that analyze an image and calculates the current compression ratio. But I doubt it is that important.
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
No. This is a wrong approach.
File size in pixels, yes, has something to do with the final weight, but it is not the only factor.
Make a test. Take a completely white file of the same 2400x600px, and save it as JPG.
Now take a photo of a forest (same 2400x600px) with lots of details and save it. This file will be larger using the same compression settings.
The final size depends on these 3 factors:
- Pixel Size
- Compression settings
- Content (Detail and complexity of the image)
So you can not and should not define the weight based on pixel size.
But I understand your problem.
Without analyzing the current compression of the image, it is hard to define the "optimal" weight (which is relative to the observer, or usage of the images)
You probably can define a compression setting and recompress "all of them". I don't know if you want to do that before "uploading", which probably will save you more time than the saved skipping some of them.
There are some tools that analyze an image and calculates the current compression ratio. But I doubt it is that important.
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
edited 48 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
answered 1 hour ago
RafaelRafael
13.5k12141
13.5k12141
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
add a comment |
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
I understand the part about white image vs forest image. Would you suggest that I take a random sample of images, re-save them using photoshop (70 quality) and use the largest pixel:filesize ratio as reference? I am guessing those with lower ratio would be those with less detail.
– Salman A
31 mins ago
add a comment |
The size of files compressed with JPEG vary depending on the complexity of the image. Trying the control the file sizes the way you describe will result in highly variable perceived image quality.
Just use a quality setting that you find acceptable, like 75. Compare the size of the result with the original image, and keep the smaller file. See What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
Or consider using a JPEG minimizer, like JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive. They are essentially designed to do what you seem to be trying to do, but with more awareness of JPEG algorithm internals.
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
add a comment |
The size of files compressed with JPEG vary depending on the complexity of the image. Trying the control the file sizes the way you describe will result in highly variable perceived image quality.
Just use a quality setting that you find acceptable, like 75. Compare the size of the result with the original image, and keep the smaller file. See What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
Or consider using a JPEG minimizer, like JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive. They are essentially designed to do what you seem to be trying to do, but with more awareness of JPEG algorithm internals.
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
add a comment |
The size of files compressed with JPEG vary depending on the complexity of the image. Trying the control the file sizes the way you describe will result in highly variable perceived image quality.
Just use a quality setting that you find acceptable, like 75. Compare the size of the result with the original image, and keep the smaller file. See What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
Or consider using a JPEG minimizer, like JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive. They are essentially designed to do what you seem to be trying to do, but with more awareness of JPEG algorithm internals.
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
The size of files compressed with JPEG vary depending on the complexity of the image. Trying the control the file sizes the way you describe will result in highly variable perceived image quality.
Just use a quality setting that you find acceptable, like 75. Compare the size of the result with the original image, and keep the smaller file. See What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
Or consider using a JPEG minimizer, like JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive. They are essentially designed to do what you seem to be trying to do, but with more awareness of JPEG algorithm internals.
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
edited 25 mins ago
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
answered 33 mins ago
xiotaxiota
8,60221449
8,60221449
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
add a comment |
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
@szulat Moved comments into answer, per your suggestion.
– xiota
29 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
Or if you want to go "extreme" on the JPEG minimisation, guetzli. Do note the memory and time requirements.
– Philip Kendall
6 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
I tried guetzli, but wasn't very impressed. It's very slow and only reduces sizes by about 20-30%. With jpeg-recompress, files can be reduced 80% with the smallfry algorithm.
– xiota
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Salman A is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Salman A is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Salman A is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Salman A is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104118%2foptimal-size-of-a-jpeg-image-in-terms-of-its-dimensions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What quality to choose when converting to JPG?
– xiota
1 hour ago
@xiota the resulting file size is not important as long as it is somewhere around n KB where I don't exactly know n but it should be much lower than what I currently have. I plan to use same quality for all images.
– Salman A
1 hour ago
xiota's first comment should be the answer! btw, what is your priority? if for some reason you just need small files, the quality may suffer sometimes. it is easy to create unreasonably big jpeg files with no perceivable gain in quality. detecting and recompressing such images is a good idea, simply use the jpeg quality setting, like xiota said.
– szulat
49 mins ago
@szulat the images were created by someone who did not know that images need to be made smaller for web (people tend to move away from your website if it takes to long to load). So basically I want to identify ridiculously large files that could be made smaller by sacrificing little bit of quality.
– Salman A
27 mins ago
Potentially of interest: Google Photos high quality backup — how does Google achieve great compression and am I losing some data?
– osullic
14 mins ago