Compressing large JPEG files.

[kgun]

I want to compress two large jpeg image files. The biggiest is 1.3 Mb in size. Usually my daughter do that for me in Photoshop that I don't have on my computer. But she is not available now. I can compress the files a little by loading and saving them in Paint but that is far from enough.

So my question is:

What is the best free image compression tool that do not reduce the image quality too much?

Both images shall be embedded on the same page, so the compression has to be efficient.

[Dubbya]

This free tool should work...
Easy Graphic Converter: free image converter, graphic converter software.

You should be able to specify the level of compression. Bear in mind that the higher the compression settings, the more distorted the image becomes.

There are a few things you can do to reduce file size without distorting the image too noticeably.

• Lighten the image by reducing contrast.
• Blur unimportant parts of the image.
• Remove unimportant elements by cropping the image.

Overall, an image that is not sharply focused and that doesn't use vivid colours will be much more easily compressed. If the background is not a crucial part of the image, you may want to remove it so that you're only including the focal point.

Good Luck!

[stephaniewwp]

Hi Kgun,

I use the free resizing tool from www_ FreeImageBrowser _com (just click on the icon on the home page) - it is awesome especially if you have tons of photos to resize. It is great you just select a folder where your images are are it will automatically create a folder inside it called "Resized" and resizes your images and compresses them for you.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

This free tool should work...
Easy Graphic Converter: free image converter, graphic converter software.

Hey nice find, Dubbya. I'll be interested in giving it a try, I especially like the idea of the batch converter tool.

If I can add to Dubbya's list of things to consider in reducing file size... and I may be preaching to the choir, but always make sure to resize images before adding them to a page layout. One thing I see all too often (with great horror) is when images are resized through 'width' and 'height' attributes. Not only does it distort the images, it doesn't make the image file any smaller. It just displays it smaller, often with undesireable results.

Mostly it's the result of someone resizing images through a wysiwyg editor, using an untouched huge picture directly from their 8mp digital camera. (the only unintended advantage is when the image is viewable in actual size from Google Images). The image file remains the same, even though displayed smaller, making the page take that much longer to load (especially if it's a static "gallery").

[RockyMtnHi]

Hi,
I had the same problem so I created a batch image converter to resize images, change formats, and change compression jpg's in my web development.

One other common problem of processing many images for websites is that you have to write a lot of mundane code for them. I added a feature to create the HTML for your images once they are processed. You can also automatically add links from the tnail to the larger image and have the option of using a popup or not.

You can download it for free at 21stsoft.com/products/index.asp#batch-image-converter
I couldn't use the complete URL because this was my first post.

Hope it helps...

[smbotans]

i would recommend irfanview from IrfanView.com, it is a very popular graphics viewer and will enable you to resize an image and/or reduce its size for use on the web

i use it regularly and have been very happy with it

cheers

serge

ps one way to reduce the size of an image is to reduce its dpi to 72 as it is more than enough for web pages, dpi stands for 'dots per inch'

[ndibs]

I usually like to reduce the size of my reports before I send them out as pdf's and usually it's the images that would bulk it up.

NOW THE IMAGE COMPRESSION
I insert the images in text boxes in MS-Word (so I can easily size them and position them + add a text description under the image and within the frame [text box]).
Then before I print to Adobe pdf, I click on the image to bring up format picture > then compress all images to 96dpi.
Then print using Adobe Pro.

If I'm just emailing the images as attachments, I use the reduce image size utility that's part of MS-Outlook.

[kgun]

Thank you very much all for your input.

Originally Posted by ndibs

I usually like to reduce the size of my reports before I send them out as pdf's and usually it's the images that would bulk it up.

NOW THE IMAGE COMPRESSION
I insert the images in text boxes in MS-Word (so I can easily size them and position them + add a text description under the image and within the frame [text box]).
Then before I print to Adobe pdf, I click on the image to bring up format picture > then compress all images to 96dpi.
Then print using Adobe Pro.

If I'm just emailing the images as attachments, I use the reduce image size utility that's part of MS-Outlook.

Very creative proposal that can be used in other respects. I have Adobe professional 7, Word2002 and Office 1997 on my stone age computer.

What about OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite ? I think there is a tool similar to Photoshop there, but will not start downloading the package only for this tool. Anybody that has experience both with OpenOffice and Office20007?

[jordanmcclements]

Originally Posted by smbotans

i would recommend irfanview from IrfanView.com, it is a very popular graphics viewer and will enable you to resize an image and/or reduce its size for use on the web

i use it regularly and have been very happy with it

cheers

serge

ps one way to reduce the size of an image is to reduce its dpi to 72 as it is more than enough for web pages, dpi stands for 'dots per inch'

I agree Irfanview is a very powerful (small) download.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by kgun

What about OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite ? I think there is a tool similar to Photoshop there, but will not start downloading the package only for this tool. Anybody that has experience both with OpenOffice and Office20007?

I have, and am a believer in OpenOffice -- it's a great productivity suite. That said, nothing in the package has any comparison to Photoshop. There's a "draw" tool, (Here is a screen shot) but not really an image editor. OO can do a couple simple things, such as brightness, color tinting or contrast, but it's not what you're looking for. Google's Picasa would be a better candidate I think.

Overall though, I think what you're looking for based on what was said I would give the suggestions already mentioned in the thread a try...

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by ndibs

Then print using Adobe Pro.

Are you using Adobe Pro for anything else other than to print to pdf? Just curious if you've given CutePDF Writer a try. It's free, and it's lightweight because that's all it does. Prints to pdf from every application that can print.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Are you using Adobe Pro for anything else other than to print to pdf? Just curious if you've given CutePDF Writer a try. It's free, and it's lightweight because that's all it does. Prints to pdf from every application that can print.

There are lot of such "PDF printers".

I found his solution valuable.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by smbotans

i would recommend irfanview from IrfanView.com, it is a very popular graphics viewer and will enable you to resize an image and/or reduce its size for use on the web

i use it regularly and have been very happy with it

ps one way to reduce the size of an image is to reduce its dpi to 72 as it is more than enough for web pages, dpi stands for 'dots per inch'

That's what I was going to suggest, and is what I use. It's very simple to use and free. Just drag the image to the Desktop shortcut, chose to save as a jpg, then mess around with the slider control to see how low you can move it while keeping some image quality. Save each attempt (with a new name of course) then compare them all. (You can only "undo" ONE CHANGE to an image in IrfanView, so remember that if you change the image in any way).

You don't say what you want to do with images. If for the web, just resize it to small size or whatever you want, and save it with a save quality of about 75. Then use that as the thumbnail view linking to the large image opening in a separate window. When resizing always use the resampling feature. If it's for email, 1.3mb shouldn't be any problem sending and receiving unless a dial-up is involved which could really slow things down.

[mark3738]

As I haven't checked what sort of computer you are running Kgun this information may or may not be useful to you, but for people using Windows OS there are some very good built in tools for resizing images, batch processing them and even customising the sizes.

Annoyingly they are basically built into XP and newer systems but Microsoft never took the time to make them permanent features, or tell people about them, and this is one of their better tools, especially for the average user without expensive photo manipulation software like Photoshop.

You may be aware that by selecting images in Explorer/My Pictures and right-clicking you can choose to email these photos to a friend/colleague and a small box opens asking if you would like to resize the images. It gives you 3 or 4 basic sizes and turns 1.5mb files into 70kb files easily. I have told plenty of people how to use this when they are sending me all their latest baby photos, etc!

Well instead of having to email yourself these resized photos, if you go to this page Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP and download the ImageResizer tool (521kb), this will put a tool in your Explorer browser right-click menu that allows you to use the same procedure and built in tools to create copies in the same folder that have been resized. You can easily shift them afterwards as they are all named differently and do not overwrite your original files.

I have installed this on many clients' computers who need to send me product photos to update their websites and when I don't necessarily need 25Mb emails!

For any Windows users I think this is a great tool. You will see a variety of other tools that may be handy too.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mark3738

You may be aware that by selecting images in Explorer/My Pictures and right-clicking you can choose to email these photos to a friend/colleague and a small box opens asking if you would like to resize the images. It gives you 3 or 4 basic sizes and turns 1.5mb files into 70kb files easily. I have told plenty of people how to use this when they are sending me all their latest baby photos, etc!

Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all the trees. There is no lack of information. The problem is to find the best sources.

Thank you very much.

[andr113]

I think, that quality depends on size. It's impossible to compress image without quality missing.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by andr113

I think, that quality depends on size. It's impossible to compress image without quality missing.

More so, or more accurately; quality depends on the amount of compression. The more a jpg is compressed, the smaller the file size will be and the lower the quality will be. Depending on the content and quality of the original file, some can be compressed quite a lot with very little loss in quality where you have to look pretty close to see any compression artifacts. For example; using IrfanView, when saving a jpg with the slider set to "100" results in a massive file size but of top quality, but you can move it as far down as only "65" or so and it looks almost exactly the same, you have to look pretty close to see any difference. Again, this depends on the image. If there is any text or graphics in the image you can certainly tell the difference then (and a gif may be better). But if it's of a landscape or similar, you may even be able to get it lower than 65. The file size difference can be HUGE too.

[kgun]

Do you know the game Free Tetris ? (Note different levels).

You may get holes there if you are not clever enough.

That is why "fractal compression" has been so efficient.

Related thread:

http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post397214

There is not much difference in quality between the 33.9 Mb movie (post #20) and the compressed:

I just tested it and converted your video to a full screen .wmv file of approx 7mb (down from your file that was about 34mb). (post #29).

See post 33# if the link in post #29 get removed.

So in a sense, efficient compression is like being an advanced tetris player

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by kgun

Do you know the game Free Tetris ? (Note different levels).

You may get holes there if you are not clever enough.

That is why "fractal compression" has been so efficient.

Related thread:

http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post397214

There is not much difference in quality between the 33.9 Mb movie (post #20) and the compressed:

I just tested it and converted your video to a full screen .wmv file of approx 7mb (down from your file that was about 34mb). (post #29).

See post 33# if the link in post #29 get removed.

So in a sense, efficient compression is like being an advanced tetris player

(I keep getting the same homepage loop every time I click the link on the page "Click here to play").

I've found video compression totally different than image compression. A movie can be compressed a lot and still look the same. I would guess this is because most of the movie/video clips are of such low quality and low sampling rate that they can be compressed more without looking any different. There's a free program called "SUPER.exe" that will convert any kind of video file to any other kind of video file. I've found it very interesting in learning about bit rates, formats, and Codecs with regards to file size Vs. quality. Another thing, if you want to convert a poor quality FLV into say a WMV or AVI, if you use the better settings the result will look WORSE than using a lower setting (lower bit rate), because the lower bit rate won't show the detail, therefore won't show the huge compression artifacts and other artifacting associated with low quality files. It, in a manner of speaking, "smooths out" the jagged edges and compression anomalies.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Clint1

(I keep getting the same homepage loop every time I click the link on the page "Click here to play").

Cryptical unless it is too obvious

Originally Posted by Clint1

There's a free program called "SUPER.exe" that will convert any kind of video file to any other kind of video file. I've found it very interesting in learning about bit rates, formats, and Codecs with regards to file size Vs. quality.

The same as this

Link: super.exe - Program Information

<cite>
This is an undesirable program.

This file has been identified as a program that is undesirable to have running on your computer. This consists of programs that are misleading, harmful, or undesirable.

If the description states that it is a piece of malware, you should immediately run an antivirus and antispyware program. If that does not help, feel free to ask us for assistance in the forums.
</cite>

[Clint1]

That Bleepingcomputer.com site always has FP's on it. But no, that's a different program anyway. SUPER © .

I don't understand the Free Tetris site, unless that's the joke, there is no online free Tetris. LOL. I see the actual URL of the link is the same as the page it's on.

[kgun]

Seems that you are correct about the online tetris game. If was the first hit on Google.

[sushil]

Open them with Adobe photo shop then right click at the top of image, click open image size, see the resolution bring it down to 72 if its more and then save the picture and it would come down to 150 or less kbytes.
Another way of doing it is open the image through Adobe photo shop and then go the file menu and then save the image as save for web pages. It will let you choose the size of the image you want.

[kgun]

In the end, my Daughter did it for me in Adobe Photoshop.

Here Italia's mathjerte is the result so long. (folder blocked for good spiders).

Final site will be here: http://kongsfjordmat.no/ This process takes time here, you have to sign a schema and when that is received, wait a day or two.

My own view:

1. The site loads fast.
2. The picture quality could have been better.

Here are the originals if somebody can do it better.

http://www.bandtrading.com/temp/bild...gine%20028.jpg

http://www.bandtrading.com/temp/bild...gine%20037.jpg

As told above, I don't have Adobe Photoshop, so I sent the files by email to her. Will not ask her for a new try.

[Clint1]

Yeah they look really pixelated bad. I redid them for you, 3 of #28 and 4 of #37 for a total of 7 images, now I have to figure out how to get them to you.

[kgun]

Thank you:

You can upload them to a temporary folder on your site.

[Clint1]

Ok here's the first 3. The letter suffixes are lowest to highest quality. They were also the wrong aspect ratio, the correct ratio for a 360 width is 360x270. They were renamed when uploaded so be sure you rename them accordingly.

http://i42.tinypic.com/3480y7r.jpg 20028a
http://i40.tinypic.com/2d9d45h.jpg 20028b
http://i44.tinypic.com/2qxyu5s.jpg 20028c

[Clint1]

And the rest:
20037a http://i44.tinypic.com/2zrmfs2.jpg
20037b http://i41.tinypic.com/doq8eq.jpg
20037c http://i42.tinypic.com/2m62878.jpg
20037d http://i40.tinypic.com/nzro1j.jpg

[kgun]

Thanks.

Saved on my computer so you can delete the first four links.

[Clint1]

When I say "lowest quality to highest quality" I don't mean the lowest possible and highest possible, I just mean that's the save options I chose. The first group's save quality is 65, 70, and 75; the second group 60, 65, 70, and 75. The 2nd image had far less artifacting in it so I tried a 60 on it. If you want them to be about the same file size as your thumbnails, I can do that later on, but of course they'll look a little bit worse than these.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by kgun

Thanks.

Saved on my computer so you can delete the first four links.

You don't need to delete images at that website. I'm not sure how it works. Free, no registration, and I don't know if the URL's time out or remain indefinitely.

[kgun]

I think that is enough. All 7 files saved.

I will use them on the final site unless someone can come up with even better

resolution/compression.

Did you use the tool you mentioned above?

Great Job Clint.

[Clint1]

Ok I can come up with a better resolution/compression. If you can stand them looking slightly worse (which may not be perceptible to anyone but me), I can do it. I just left them the same physical size as you had them (with the aspect ratio correction). But 360x270 looks fine for that webpage.

Yeah, I used IrfanView. It only took me about 5 minutes from the time I saw your post till the time I started to upload them. Of course I use it dozens of times a day. No site owner should be without it.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Ok I can come up with a better resolution/compression. If you can stand them looking slightly worse (which may not be perceptible to anyone but me), I can do it. I just left them the same physical size as you had them (with the aspect ratio correction). But 360x270 looks fine for that webpage.

1. There is maximal and an optimal solution.
2. If something should be improved, it should be picture quality at the cost of a bigger file.
3. On the final site, I have to optimize the trade off between speed and picture quality. The site is mainly made for Norwegian surfers. Most people here have fast connections, so a bigger file may be tolerated.
4. Great to know good tools.

Have a nice weekend.

[Clint1]

2., Ok. The 2nd set of images (#37) all look good, so those should be fine. The 1st set (# 28 ) due to content has more artifacts, so I did that image again this time with a quality of 80 & 85. 85 looks really close to the original. (Note the hanging pans and cork-board on all #28's images, that's where you see the differences).
20028d http://i41.tinypic.com/smbl1y.jpg
20028e http://i43.tinypic.com/2s8pyfa.jpg

[kgun]

Downloaded. Seemingly we have created so much traffic to my hoster, that I am not able to upload your best images. Will be done when there is less traffic.

Much better Clint.

[Clint1]

Wow, must have been a lot of people checking out the links.

[DBLL]

kgun, you mentioned using Paint earlier, i would like to suggest some better editors, which can be used in place of the expensive photoshop.

Paint.NET is a grath editor, which generally is more stable then Gimp. You can get it from http://www.getpaint.net/ There is a number of very useful plugins as well. Gimp is perhaps better known then Paint.NET, but i still find that Paint.NET is better, in that it has been more stable on my comp. Not to mention that it works in Vista.

You may also want to check out Artweaver from http://www.artweaver.de/ Its lesser known to me, as i havn't worked much with it yet, i didn't like it as much as Paint.NET last time i tried it however.

[kgun]

Thank you for your update.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by DBLL

kgun, you mentioned using Paint earlier, i would like to suggest some better editors, which can be used in place of the expensive photoshop.

Paint.NET is a grath editor, which generally is more stable then Gimp. You can get it from Paint.NET - Free Software for Digital Photo Editing There is a number of very useful plugins as well.

Do you know where you're supposed to get the plugins? The "plugins" link on their homepage only goes to a forum! It looks like each plugin has to be downloaded and installed separately.
Thanks.

[DBLL]

Yes, well Plugins usually do need to be installed separately. There are however no reason to install any of them if you don't need them, Paint.NET does quite well without. Check their forum for installation instructions, they should be easy to install.

I've really only installed the 3dshape plugin, other then that I'd rather wait for features such as custom brush-sets, or fake them manually.

[Clint1]

IrfanView plugins can install all at once via an exe file. Do you if there's a list somewhere of all the plugins available that one can simply browse through to see if any are needed?
Thanks.