Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Save for web interpolation question

Jul 29, 2012 1:13 PM

I understand that different images have very different requirements, but I just resized 80 images and two of them just wont go below 450 mb, even at very lowest setting. (most are happily at 150mb at high/ medium)  What could it be with these images? just banal people photos. Only thing I can think of is that they were older film shots, and I got them returned from Getty images, from their scanning. Still don't get it. Mode is 8 bit rbg, stumped. thanks.

 
Replies
  • JJMack
    6,045 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 1:46 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    You should be able to save your two problem image to the size files you want using save for web if you reduce the image pixel size by some precent and use a low quality setting.  How well an image will compress depends a lot on its content if the image is complex with a lot detail images file sizes are larger then those with little detail.  Noise is like a lot of detail if the images are old and noisey try noise reduction before Save for Web and if that does not work add in some Save for web resize interpolation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 1:47 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    You can't get a JPG image below 450 MegaBytes?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 1:58 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    What are the pixel counts (horizontal x vertical), Kevin?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 2:01 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    It is literally impossible for a 1000 x 1500 pixel image to be saved into a JPEG file that is several hundred megabytes in size.

     

    So either you're confusing megabytes with kilobytes, you're doing something odd like saving in another format that preserves layers and you have bizillions of layers, or you have something terribly wrong with your system.

     

    Please put up some screenshots with your file sizes showing.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,045 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 3:04 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    kevin4545 wrote:

     

    thanks forgot to mention the images must be saved at 1000 x 1500 px.

    I edited a new document 1000px by 1500px White save for web higest quality 100 saved as a 18.3 KB file added as much noise as Photoshop would do save for web highest quailty setting 100 the resulting file size is 4.11MB. Please post one of your 450MB jpeg 1000x1500 image files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 3:04 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    It might be possible if he includes metadata and has something huge in the metadata.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,045 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 3:21 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    It might be possible if he includes metadata and has something huge in the metadata.

    400MB of metadata now that would be something but by default Save for Web want to stript metadata except for Copyright and contact info.  400MB of copyright protection now that's something for sure.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 3:24 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Interesting concept...  A small JPEG with a truly huge dataset embedded as metadata.  Talk about backwards.  Might cut down on illicit copying though.  

     

    Let's see when the screen grabs are posted. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 5:38 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    ...forgot to mention the images must be saved at 1000 x 1500 px. Still all the others are about 200 or 150 mb at medium/ high/ max. Whereas these two are at 450mb at low.

    I did a few tests using SFW for images this size. Coming in around 170Kb or so at medium/high compression. I think Kevin is just mixing up his Ms and Ks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 6:44 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    For files that size... it is not too unusual for images that have a lot of contrast and detail (grain, raster text, noise, etc) to come in  larger when saving as JPG. You mention SFW in your thread title. Are you saving metadata too?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,045 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 8:25 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    kevin4545 wrote:

     

    charles thanks, what is sfw?

     

    Have not looked at the metadata. would that baloon the size? These two did originate from film.

    No scans would not have a lot of metadata for there is no camera info and metadata is normally small to begin with. Try using some NR on the scans if you see noise and dust it may help the images to compress better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 10:07 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    >> A small JPEG with a truly huge dataset embedded as metadata.

     

    I had someone turn on history recording in metadata, plus placed files, plus print records etc.

    Their 150K JPEG turned into 35 Meg just with all the extra metadata.

    Turn off metadata, and they got back to a reasonable JPEG.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 1:51 AM   in reply to kevin4545

    SFW = Save for Web

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,045 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 4:57 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    >> A small JPEG with a truly huge dataset embedded as metadata.

     

    I had someone turn on history recording in metadata, plus placed files, plus print records etc.

    Their 150K JPEG turned into 35 Meg just with all the extra metadata.

    Turn off metadata, and they got back to a reasonable JPEG.

    Yes history could be huge but in this case the OP used MB  in error he was talking KB and SWF normally strip most metadata but metadata could be a problem if keep ALL metadata is selected for the OP was writting about around 300KB not 300MB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 7:02 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    I can see how accumulating metadata can result in a big file, though even your example, Chris, is less than 10% of the 450 mb size mentioned.  That would still be hard to achieve.

     

    In any case, it appears Kevin accidentally confused the abbreviations for megabytes and kilobytes, and JJ's advice to try to prep the image for better compression by reducing noise is right on.

     

    But Kevin, keep in mind that if doing so degrades the image's appearance, then it might just be better to post a larger file online in this case, as an exception.  Half a megabyte online isn't as big a deal as it once was...  Internet speeds continue to go up around the globe.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 10:35 AM   in reply to kevin4545

    Using the default settings, Save for Web will automatically strip the file of its metadata.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 12:06 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    Not moot, just tangential.

    I would try what JJ said and experiment with some Noise Reduction.

     

    A quick example-  here is an image of your target size (1000 X 1500) made of two passes of the Add Noise Filter in PS (one color one BW) and with a zero quality setting in SFW, it still comes in at 480 KB!

     

    cacophony_city.jpg

     

    And I run a 10 px Dust and Scratch Filter... produces a JPG of just 20 KB when SFW at zero.

     

    decacophonized.jpg

    Note, these are extreme examples, but gives you an idea of how a JPG format size can change based on the amount of detail in the image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 1:37 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    Screen-shot-2012-07-30-at-21.24.33.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 1:41 PM   in reply to kevin4545

    Kevin, did you not see the Metadata section in the Save for Web dialog?

     

    MetadataSelection.gif

     

    Edit:  Conroy beat me to it.  Big red arrows are quicker to make than animations. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points