Image reduction file size?

PaulGN · February 5th, 2006, 12:31 PM

I seem to be posting a lot today...

I have uploaded some .gif images to my database. The Thumbnail and Medium sized images are appearing fine, and the larger image is storing correctly.

However, there is something I can't quite figure out and that is the file sizes of the images:

The large .gif image is about 10k
The thumbnail .gif image is about 19k

But the medium .gif image is about 89k!!

Is this normal? Because I can't understand how the reduced images can be larger in size?

I suspect I have set something up incorrectly - but I can't see what?

Again, any help would be appreciated.

Chuck S · February 6th, 2006, 10:40 AM

Could be the compression on the large image is max. We compress photos based on your settings and by default it is 70. I dont recommend setting any lower without loss of quality

PaulGN · February 9th, 2006, 03:11 PM

Thanks for your reply Chuck.

I have tried to vary the compression quality from 70% to 30% just to see what would happen to the look and actual file sizes of the medium and thumbnail images.

The file sizes stay exactly the same as before! Even when lowering the quality setting!!

I think imagemagick is not functioning correctly. There is no loss of quality in the image or change in file size when changing the quality setting!

Any ideas?

Chuck S · February 9th, 2006, 03:30 PM

What version of Photopost you using?

What happens if you use GD2?

PaulGN · February 9th, 2006, 03:32 PM

I am using the latest 5.3 version of PhotoPost.

I have not tried GD2 but I will and see what happens.

PaulGN · February 9th, 2006, 03:49 PM

Just tried GD2 - great result! Image size is about 70k smaller!! Varying the quality setting works and another bonus - images actually look better - the color is as it should be - whereas with imagemagick the images looked a bit washed out.

I'm still confused to what is the cause of the problem regarding imagemagick - but GD2 is working great.

Thanks Chuck.

NOTE: Just to make an amendment to what I have stated above - varying the quality setting is actually not resulting in a change to the file size. It generally is around 17k a bit more than the original image but significantly smaller than ImageMagick. But there does still appear to be a problem with the quality setting - in that it basically is not having any effect on the look or file size of the image?

Still, its way better than Imagemagick so I can live with it!

Chuck S · February 9th, 2006, 04:07 PM

Well remember quality will only compress an image to a certain degree. If the file is compressed all it can be there is nothing more the processor can do.

Now it sounds to me your imagemagick install is not working correctly since we use +profile "*" in the command structure of imagemagick to strip the exif information. So it seems this is not being done.