<div dir="ltr">You do not say whether the originals are in JPG formst or in RAW format. If the latter, they contain a lot of information that can be safely discarded (it is used for photo-processing which - in re-compressing - you have decided to forgo.<div>
<br></div><div>If your originals are JPG files, the re-compression is just that. Now, a JPG compression on JPG compression adds more artefacts, depending on what has been photographed.</div><div><br></div><div>And, you will not be able to enlarge and print anything really huge.</div>
<div><br></div><div>C'est touts.</div><div><br></div><div>M<br clear="all"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">---MAV<div><a href="mailto:marc@bard.org.il" target="_blank">marc@bard.org.il</a></div>
<div><br></div></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Amos Shapira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amos.shapira@gmail.com" target="_blank">amos.shapira@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br><br>I'm preparing a disk-on-key with family photos to send to my mum and noticed something a bit unexpected.<br>Most of the photos were taken with a Canon EOS 300D, maximum resolution and minimum compression.<br>
Some were taken with Android phone and iPhone 4.<br>I use Digikam on Debian to manage my photos.<br clear="all">The total space of the original images (including movies, which weren't touched) was ~7.6Gb.<br>The total space after re-compression using default parameters (75%, JPEG, no resizing) - < 1Gb.<br>
<br>I think I saw before that simple re-compression saves a lot of disk space, but this is about 90% reduction (take into account that this includes copied untouched .mp4 movie files).<br>From eye-balling the images on the computer screen (24", 1920x1280) they look just fine. They are going to be printed on regular sized photo paper, not made into bus-stop posters or anything.<br>
<br>Am I missing something? Should I still send the larger images (I think I can just barely fit them into an old 8Gb disk-on-key) or will the smaller ones do fine?<br><br>It also makes me wonder about my own photo stash - it takes a few dozens of Gb's now. If I can recompress them without losing noticeable quality (assume I never intend to display/print them larger than an A4 page) then this could save me a huge amount of disk (+backups, handling, easier shipping to relatives on the other side of the world etc).<br>
<br>Thanks,<br><br>--Amos<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/gliderflyer" target="_blank">
<span>
<img alt="View my profile on LinkedIn" height="25" width="160">
</span></a></div><br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Linux-il mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il">Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il" target="_blank">http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>