Is there a program which will do it automatically without me having to go through each picture??
Printable View
Is there a program which will do it automatically without me having to go through each picture??
@Submeg i don't know about jpeg to png direct conversion but i used infranview to convert all my Amiga .iff images to png for viewing on pc
get it here
it does batch file conversion and even sequential re-naming etc 000, 001,002 etc
hope that helps m8!
Ps i hope you mean Pc of course ;)
Yep all on PC, it's just that having 700 photos in JPEG takes a bit of room when u want to upload ;)
With photos PNG will be far larger! JPG is the most efficient file format when it comes to photos.
Damn it is too! oh well time to upload then!!!
Have you tried just compressing the jpgs more? Normally most pictures will look perfectly fine with a 20-30% compression ratio (that's photoshop settings, some software uses reverse percentages. Basically I'm meaning 20% quality/size of original file). Also reducing the dimensions of an image a bit can dramatically reduce file sizes.
You can easily use irfanview for this. Just experiment with a couple of images to get them smaller while retaining good quality, and then do a batch conversion of the rest using the best settings you worked out.
hmm, photoshop anyone? Lol I dont have such software owing to me not needing it
I only mentioned Photoshop because I'm referencing the compression of jpegs based on how it works. As I also mentioned, you can us irfanview to compress your jpegs just as well, and that is completely free.
If the photos are still original resolution (i.e. the 5+ megapixels from the Digicam) make a copy of them and reduce the resolution of the copies before uploading. 1000 pixels on the shortest side should be plenty. Just make sure the "keep proportions" option is on and the other side will adjust automatically.
As Harrison said, Irfanview will do this and it's free.
As Alex said, just copy the files and resize the copies. There is a windows XP image resizer powertoy (assuming you are on XP) that is free and mega simple. Pretty quick too - highlight a batch and right click, choose the most suitable option and Robert is your mother's brother.
I use IrfanView for resizing images. Some images for web sites I tend to resize to 1024x768 and select 80% for the JPEG quality. I find this works well, but you might be alright with even more compressions, so maybe 70%.
80% quality is way too high for web based images. They should be around the 15-30% range.
Some of the photos which I have done using IrfanView's 80 setting have only have file sized of around 150k which seems to be quite reasonable.
Anyway, these days, with our fast internet connections we can quickly download large files so file size doesn't really matter ;)
Apart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
Umm... yes it does! Regardless of internet connection speeds you should always optimise all content making it as small as possible, while balancing its quality. There is no excuse for placing overly large image files online. Just because resources exist, it does not mean you have to try and use them all for something as simple as an image. Especially if you're considered a page layout with a few images. Even on a fast connection a group of very large images could still slow down a page loading.
When compressing images for the internet I always make the compression as high as possible without trying to lose too much quality. The final image doesn't have to be as perfect as the original. This is a big issue for many people, who try to maintain the full quality of an original image. That isn't needed. As long as the final image looks the same without zooming in then it is fine. As I said before, having 20-30% quality is perfectly fine. Pretty much all the box scans on CA are of this quality and look perfectly OK, and due to their complexity most are still 100-200K in size. If I were to make then 80% quality then we would be looking at 1-2MB file sizes which is silly.
You say your images are about 150K, so you have been lucky so far, or the images are very small or have limited colour variation which helps to keep sizes down with jpeg compression.
Oi! I am now back on broadband you know! Was only on 56kack for 2 days. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulesteApart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
BTW, I just remembered something. Only a couple of years ago, wasn't a certain Stephen Coates bashing on about how broadband wasn't needed and dial-up was perfectly fine for everything he needed? :eyebrow:
And floppy disks.
And VCRs.
And audio cassettes.
I was only saying how I didn't need broadband. I do find it useful, but I still don't 'need' it. I am posting this from a dialup connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonOi! I am now back on broadband you know! Was only on 56kack for 2 days. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulesteApart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
BTW, I just remembered something. Only a couple of years ago, wasn't a certain Stephen Coates bashing on about how broadband wasn't needed and dial-up was perfectly fine for everything he needed? :eyebrow:
At least with dialup, I won't have to answer anyone elses telephone calls. (About 9 out of 10 calls which we get are not for me, and when they are, it will be something silly - 'are you going to dad's house tonight?' 'will you buy me a newspaper in the morning?')
As for floppy disks - they work great for me still. I'm not saying I won't need other portable storage, but when I do, I have access to zip disks anbd the internet :)
If you're back on BB then whats happened to my screenshots????;)
RetroSteve saying that Dial Up was all he needed?? Nah i don't believe you.:p
Your screenshots are sitting on my HD waiting to be reduced in file size ready to be added to the site! ;)
Clear your browser cache and then load the home page for http://www.classicamiga.com and then tell me you are happy with dial-up! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
The internet has moved on Steve. As usual you have been left behind.
He's not been left behind, it's all a big plan so we have to declare him Leader when our backs are up against the wall during the next stone age.
Here is an image that has been sized to 1024x768 with 80% IrfanView quality: http://emaculation.com/steve/monitors.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
Here is the same picture, but was saved with 20% IrfanView quality instead: http://emaculation.com/steve/compress.jpg
If they look the same to you, then you either need a better monitor or your eyes testing.
Both look like messy bedrooms to me except the one that's compressed more looks tidier as the crap is blended into one item.;)
It isn't an exact science Steve! I forgot how literally you take everything ever said! You have to experiment with the levels of compression to balance it between compression and quality. There is no way you could just say 20% for all images as all images are different.
One of the cool things about Photoshop is it's "Save for web" mode where it gives a live preview as you adjust the quality - makes finding the balance pretty easy.
Exactly what I use! ;) Used to be a sort of simplified part of Image Ready, but Adobe have now ditched that in favour of Fireworks. Shame really as I liked Images Ready more for creating web graphics. I find Fireworks a bit too complex and vector based for what I normally need to do. But I'm glad they did keep the save for web mode in Photoshop as I use that the most. A quick Ctrl+Alt+Shift+S shortcut key combination and up it pops. :)