StewMac tools

picture file size test

Please put your pickup/wiring discussions in the Electronics section; and put discussions about repair issues, including fixing errors in new instruments, in the Repairs section.

picture file size test

Postby Randy Roberts » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:54 am

Thought it might be good to see if there was noticable differences to the pictures posted based on various file sizes. Might help to decide what limits to file size you'll want to go with.
Don't know if this is necessarily a good test picture but it seemed to have a fair amount of detail so I used it.
I made each example a standard 600 X 450 size and then shrunk the file with Adobe Elements 6 using the "save for web" feature and optimized each for 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 K size.
Attachments
A50.jpg
50k
Randy Roberts
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:11 pm
Location: Omaha, NE (a suburb of Iowa)

Re: picture file size test

Postby Randy Roberts » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:56 am

Whoops, I see the size limit is now 100k. Well so much for the test, here's 100K.
Attachments
A100.jpg
100k
Randy Roberts
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:11 pm
Location: Omaha, NE (a suburb of Iowa)

Re: picture file size test

Postby Randy Roberts » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:59 am

I think I'll try to post a bigger one anyway.

Nope, it stopped me.
I don't see much difference between 50 and 100 k myself.
Randy Roberts
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:11 pm
Location: Omaha, NE (a suburb of Iowa)

Re: picture file size test

Postby Charlie Schultz » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:55 pm

I could not see much (if any) difference either.
User avatar
Charlie Schultz
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mark Swanson » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:58 pm

Actually the first photo shows better detail to me because the second one is a bit lighter and that washes some details away.
    Mark Swanson, guitarist, MIMForum Staff
User avatar
Mark Swanson
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:11 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan USA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Tim Douglass » Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:00 pm

Is that palm in the rosette?

Oh, and I don't see much difference either.
Tim Douglass
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Randy Roberts » Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:28 pm

Tim,
Yep, end grain black palm. It eats sawblades like cookies.

Mark,
Any differences are solely in whatever Photoshop does when it maximizes for a set file size. Both started out from the same 10Meg photo.
Randy Roberts
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:11 pm
Location: Omaha, NE (a suburb of Iowa)

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mark Day » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:10 am

Yeah surprisingly the 50k seems to have a little more detail.

"Yep, end grain black palm. It eats sawblades like cookies."
Figures. I like the look of that stuff too and Woodcraft has it on sale from time to time. Maybe save it for a blade that is just about used up.
User avatar
Mark Day
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mario Proulx » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:44 pm

Let's try a larger photo to see if there's much difference. These are 1000x768 pixels, one at around 84k, the other below 50k.


1000_test_lowres.jpg


1000_test.jpg
Mario Proulx
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mario Proulx » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:48 pm

And here's one at 1200x800, with some fine detail. Again, one is near 100k, the other below 50k....

1200_test_lowres.jpg


1200_test.jpg
Mario Proulx
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mario Proulx » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:54 pm

Opening each image in a separate tab, then toggling back and forth between them, the difference between the low res and the higher one is quite striking. Anyone else think so?
Mario Proulx
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mark Swanson » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:55 pm

In each of the examples Mario, I like the first photo the best. Not sure which is which size but the first photo shows the best details to me.
When I open them in different tabs I can see the difference but in the small form here it's the first one that I like best.
    Mark Swanson, guitarist, MIMForum Staff
User avatar
Mark Swanson
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:11 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan USA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Charlie Schultz » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:55 pm

I thought the windings on the E string were a little clearer in the 85k picture. Tough to tell a difference with the spruce though. Maybe monitor res matters?
User avatar
Charlie Schultz
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Tim Douglass » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:02 pm

It looks to me like monitor resolution and quality have a lot to do with it, but there is (at least on my system) a clear improvement in detail at the larger size. I'm not sure it is enough to jump up and down about, but overall I think keeping the size restriction at the 50K level may be detrimental. I'd be interested in hearing from readers who are still on slow connections, though.
Tim Douglass
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mario Proulx » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:47 pm

Mark, the first one in each post is the smaller one. Are you opening the images up full size to view?

In the spruce, I look at the silking(medulary rays), and with the low-res version they are washed-out, where they're much more defined in the larger one. In the original, full res image(at about 4MB), there's a good bit more detail to the rays and such, but there, definitely, it's not enough of a difference to warrant posting at that crazy-big size. Methinks a 100 or 120k limit is plenty fine. 50k is very hard to get down to and still maintain decent detailing, even in Photoshop(it can get terrible in the freeware resizing stuff) , and let's face it, we're all detail-oriented folks here, correct?

And yes, monitors make a difference!
Mario Proulx
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: picture file size test

Postby Mark Swanson » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:19 pm

Yes Mario I did open each up and toggle back and forth. I was just saying that at first glance in the smaller size the first one was my favorite.
I do agree with you on the size restriction, too.
    Mark Swanson, guitarist, MIMForum Staff
User avatar
Mark Swanson
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:11 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan USA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Chuck Tweedy » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:43 am

If you look at the chrome part of the capo below the neck, the reflections are all mangled in the first one. The second one is much better.
And yes the silk in the spruce is a natural pixelator for the JPEG algorithm so it shows very blocky in the smaller image.
On my Mac it is easy to see these differences.
Likes to drink Rosewood Juice
Chuck Tweedy
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:25 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: picture file size test

Postby Chuck Tweedy » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:46 am

By the way Mario, what is that little gold dot near the E tuner??
Likes to drink Rosewood Juice
Chuck Tweedy
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:25 pm
Location: San Diego, CA


Return to Flat-Top Acoustic Guitars and Bass Guitars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Your purchase from these sites helps support the MIMForum, but only if you start at the links below!!!
Amazon music     Amazon books     Amazon tools     Rockler tools     Office Depot    

The MIMF is a member-supported forum, please consider supporting us with a donation, thanks!
 • Book store • Tool store • Links •