<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<br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/gliderflyer" target="_blank">
<span>
<img src="http://s4.licdn.com/scds/common/u/img/webpromo/btn_viewmy_160x25.png" alt="View my profile on LinkedIn" height="25" width="160">
</span></a></div><br>
</div>