Image size , A technical puzzle.

On 7/10/2015 8:33 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the reason is that they have old projectors which they've probably had
for years and refuse to upgrade. it's not like an hdtv projector is
that hard to find.

Well, evidently you know what equipment all of the Camera Club
Councils in the US have. You must have learned that by a survey in
Coach. Or, since you've claimed that the people that run the group
are highly paid, you took the survey in First Class while peeping
through the curtain.

How do you come up with this wild hair of a theory, though? Dunno
about the NECCC, but the FCCC doesn't project the images at all in the
triannual competitions. The images are viewed online by the judges.
It says so in their webpage. You wouldn't be making **** up again,
would you?

If the NEFCCC is run the same as the FCCC (and I suspect it is), Peter
will not see his images projected. He will send them in and they will
view them online. The NEFCC is in Springfield MA, and Peter is in NY.
If he is among the 20/25% who win a ribbon, it will be sent to his
local camera club. His image will be up for view in on the NEFCC
webpage.

Actually, I submitted to a projected image competition, open only to
participants in the conference. I will have the opportunity to sit
through the judging, if I so desire.


in other words, tony is wrong (again) and talking out his ass (again).


Not relevant. I simply looking for an answer, which despite much
discussion, has not been approached. I am not interested in the
mentality of the folks, who are running the competition. (Who, BTW, are
mostly volunteers.)

--
PeterN

On 7/9/2015 11:17 PM, Me wrote:
On 10/07/2015 2:32 p.m., PeterN wrote:
I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

One of the images was a bit over 500 k. The other was over twice the
size.

The size of the second image exceeded the size limit for the
competition, so I saved at as a slightly lower quality, to comply with
the size limit.

Why would there be such a large a difference?

The only thing I can thinnk of is that the smaller image was cropped a
bit more than the larger.


The more detail (colour, patterns etc) there is in an image, the larger
the file size at a standard compression "quality" setting.


Thanks. I didn't realize that complexity of content was relevant to
image size. My thinking was that a pixel was a pixel regardless of
color. I will have to plahy further with that concept.


--
PeterN

On 2015-07-10 15:04:14 +0000, PeterN said:

Not relevant. I simply looking for an answer, which despite much
discussion, has not been approached. I am not interested in the
mentality of the folks, who are running the competition. (Who, BTW, are
mostly volunteers.)

How many times do folks have to give you the answer?
....or are you ignoring posts where the explaination you were looking
for was given?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/9/2015 11:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-10 02:32:10 +0000, PeterN said:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi
and measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

That seems like an odd aspect ratio and final print size, 10.2"x7.68"

One of the images was a bit over 500 k. The other was over twice the
size.

Image content is going to play a part in the file size. How did they
differ in appearance?

The size of the second image exceeded the size limit for the
competition, so I saved at as a slightly lower quality, to comply with
the size limit.

It is for a competition. It seems silly to reduce quality.

Why would there be such a large a difference?

See above: Image content.

The only thing I can thinnk of is that the smaller image was cropped a
bit more than the larger.

If that is what you set the dimensions at and the EXIF for both is
identical other than the file size, the crop had nothing to do with it.

There is an easy way to ensure that all of your entries are within the
competition limits, without having to deal with any quality adjustments.

After you have made all of your adjustments, edits, and crops,
regardless of what you have used ( I am assuming that you are in PS
after having used DxO) Save your product as a TIFF or PSD. Import that
TIFF/PSD into Lightroom.
Then rather than the PS "Resize", "Save as", or "Export" options, use
the Lightroom "Export" dialog.

In that dialog you can create a preset with file size limits within the
competition requirements. There is no need to adjust the quality.
In this example I set the export destination to a folder labelled
"Competition" on my desktop. I limited the file size to 800KB, and that
will be regardless of the dimensions set. You can set the level of
metadata inclusion.

Then any other entries subject to the same competition rules just have
to be exported from Lightroom using the same export preset.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_209.jpg

You might note that I have presets for export to Creative Cloud and
Dropbox folders.


Thanks. I would think that the mechanism that LR uses to apply image
size constraints would include compression adjustments. I could be wrong
though. I will have to experiment further. The images have already been
submitted.

--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Giff wrote:
On 10/07/2015 05:17, Me wrote:


Why would there be such a large a difference?


The more detail (colour, patterns etc) there is in an image, the larger
the file size at a standard compression "quality" setting.

Yes, the larger image had more details and thus it could be compressed
less.



Thanks, I didn't realize that.

--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:57 AM, Mayayana wrote:
As others have said, details make the difference. JPG
compresses by dropping out data, which is why over
processing shows little rectangles. I just saved a 1020
x 768 JPG at compression level 8 and it's under 5 KB.
But it's just a solid blue field, so it's easy to store that
data as something that boils down to "783360 instances
of pixels of color 0, 0, 256". Interestingly, when I opened
the JPG in a hex editor it turns out that most of the
5 KB is just null byte filler. The "start of stream" marker
that indicates the beginning of the image data is two
bytes, FF DA. The actual image data seems to be only
17 or 18 bytes.



thanks. I just confirmed that concept. Thats a lot for my septgenerian
brain to comprehend. It makes sense.

--
PeterN

On 2015-07-10 15:31:30 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/9/2015 11:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-10 02:32:10 +0000, PeterN said:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi
and measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

That seems like an odd aspect ratio and final print size, 10.2"x7.68"

One of the images was a bit over 500 k. The other was over twice the
size.

Image content is going to play a part in the file size. How did they
differ in appearance?

The size of the second image exceeded the size limit for the
competition, so I saved at as a slightly lower quality, to comply with
the size limit.

It is for a competition. It seems silly to reduce quality.

Why would there be such a large a difference?

See above: Image content.

The only thing I can thinnk of is that the smaller image was cropped a
bit more than the larger.

If that is what you set the dimensions at and the EXIF for both is
identical other than the file size, the crop had nothing to do with it.

There is an easy way to ensure that all of your entries are within the
competition limits, without having to deal with any quality adjustments.

After you have made all of your adjustments, edits, and crops,
regardless of what you have used ( I am assuming that you are in PS
after having used DxO) Save your product as a TIFF or PSD. Import that
TIFF/PSD into Lightroom.
Then rather than the PS "Resize", "Save as", or "Export" options, use
the Lightroom "Export" dialog.

In that dialog you can create a preset with file size limits within the
competition requirements. There is no need to adjust the quality.
In this example I set the export destination to a folder labelled
"Competition" on my desktop. I limited the file size to 800KB, and that
will be regardless of the dimensions set. You can set the level of
metadata inclusion.

Then any other entries subject to the same competition rules just have
to be exported from Lightroom using the same export preset.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_209.jpg

You might note that I have presets for export to Creative Cloud and
Dropbox folders.


Thanks. I would think that the mechanism that LR uses to apply image
size constraints would include compression adjustments.

There will be compression, there has to be. However, the guess work is
taken out of the equation and you can still get a good quality
competition image where the considerations are dimensions and file size
rather than the typical compression artifacts where file size has been
adjusted by "quality" settings rather than actual size.

I could be wrong though. I will have to experiment further. The images
have already been submitted.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/10/2015 10:03 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:15:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

limiting entries to 1024x768 and 1 megabyte is stupid.

NECCC entries are not limited to 1 megabyte.

yes they are.

from the entry form (which was previously linked):
http://www.greaterlynnphoto.org/members_entry00.php?request=neccc
File size can not exceed 1M, per file.

what part was not clear?

There's no requirement.
The rules say "It is suggested (though not a requirement) that entries
be saved with the proper amount of compression so that the file size
does not exceed 350 KB. If saving from Photoshop, a quality setting of
between 7 and 9 is usually sufficient to produce a high quality file.
Keeping the file size below 350 KB makes e-mailing and handling
easier."

there is no such passage in the rules,

Unlike you, I don't make **** up. The above paragraph is a copy/paste
from
http://neccc14.neccc.org/Interclub/E...egulations.pdf
it's item 23 on page 4.


Evidently, the difference is that the group has published a different
set of rules for the competitions at the conference to be held in July
in Amherst and the other competitions during the year.

So, the conclusion is that the file size is limted for some
competitions but not limited at others. You have to define NEFCCC
entries for which competition.

Tony, I gotta agree with nospam. That is for a different competition,
the interclub competition. Not the NECCC atendee's competition.


--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 10:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:15:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

based on his description, it's neccc, which is a rather well known
event with well paid staff.

It's an area-wide umbrella organization that any camera club in the
New England area can join. Most states, or groups of states, have
one. It's not well-known outside of New England any more than the
FCCC is well-known outside of Florida.

There are CCCs all across the country.

I am absolutely amazed that you know the salaries of the people in an
organization clear across the country from you. You wouldn't be
making **** up again, would you?

i do not make up ****.

i know several people who have been neccc staff or speakers at one time
or another and they were paid.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. I think that you are lying when
you say you know NEFCCC staff.

While I think it's a lie, it does make sense. You've repeatedly
called them all morons in this thread, and it does make sense that you
hang out with morons.

You said "well paid", not "paid". There's a difference. McD counter
help is paid. They are not well paid.


and how is it you know where i live? you wouldn't be making **** up
again, would you?

another thing you got wrong is that neccc is actually well known
outside of new england, as is http://www.swmccc.org outside of
michigan, because they're the two with model shoots. while most
attendees will be relatively nearby, not all of them will.

Model shoots make a program nationally known? Bull****. My local
club (which is a member of FCCC) has model shoots twice a year at the
meetings. The last one had three lighting and background set-ups.

I wouldn't presume to call anyone I don't know a moron like you do,
but I am beginning to think that the people who run the NECCC are
somewhat disorganized.

For the model shoot at the Amherst meeting, the rules state that
models must be sent photographs taken of them in the format of 1024 x
768 with a "dpi of 240".

The rules also state "Photographers should send the Photoshopped
images with the model's name to the individual model."

and "Please feel free to send as many tweaked digital images as you
with to models".


Photoshopped? Tweaked?

The general understanding of the use of "Photoshopped" (a usage
deprecated by Adobe) is "highly manipulated in post". So, I guess you
can "tweak" a model's photograph and give her a boob job.


Many, but not all of The NECCC speakers are paid, but not by NECCC. Many
are sponsored, i.e. Nikon or Canon pay them. In some cases the speakers
appearances are for the opportunity to promote their workshops. In any
case, speakers are irrelevant to the point. The speakers are not the
ones who determine the competition rules. Those who do are unpaid
volunteers.


--
PeterN

On 2015-07-09 22:32, PeterN wrote:
I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

One of the images was a bit over 500 k. The other was over twice the size.

The size of the second image exceeded the size limit for the
competition, so I saved at as a slightly lower quality, to comply with
the size limit.

Why would there be such a large a difference?

The only thing I can thinnk of is that the smaller image was cropped a
bit more than the larger.

Assuming two different images, the one with the most information
'change' will be larger (file size) than the other for the same pixel
dimensions.

Think of a placid scene, a smooth lake with few reflections...

v. a busy Times Square scene with a lot going on. More information has
to be encoded more often in the image v. the smooth scene where
compression is most efficient.