| Author | Message | ||
     Bomber |
OK, guys, here's the deal I gotta buncha shots I'd love to post -- finally got around to downloading xat (recommended on the cool pics thread), and really like the batch feature however, when I compress the shots (from 1,500kb to the suggested 50kb), the colors are weird in an acid trip sorta way, which is not the affect I was lookin for can anyone give me some guidance here? thanks a million! | ||
| Mikej |
Not that it's much better but I just use the Microsoft Office Picture Manager and then just resize the pics until the pixel count is below 700 in either direction and the mB size is below 70k. I've used the xat program at home and started getting the same psychedellic result you got. Note: I save the pics first under an assumed name such as bikepic-small, then open the -small pic and resize that one. That way I still have the originally sized one available. (Message edited by mikej on May 17, 2006) | ||
| Bomber |
mike --yep, that's what i've been doin -- not sure i'm willing to do it 30 or 40 times, though . . . . . | ||
| Mikej |
photobucket account then, upload, then imagelink. This photo unedited is too big for badweb, but here it is in original size and imagelinked:  | ||
| Bomber |
lots of work . . . phew  | ||
| Mikej |
Looks like up around Crescent City. Used to call trees like that a Troll House. Work well in a rain storm too. | ||
| Bomber |
Muir Woods, just minutes north of San Francisco -- | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
This is my favorite image tool: http://irfanview.com/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
Will XAT allow you to change the resolution before changing the size? Or does it do it automatically? I would expect that resize then optimize would give drastically better results then optimize then resize. I use Adobe Photoshop Elements (which I paid for). It has a "save for web" feature that is pretty nice and will allow you to keep tweaking until you get the size you want. It has a batch mode as well, though I have not played with it much. Image magic for linux also has a great and powerful command line interface mode that might be useful. | ||
| Sleez |
what i do, not fully optimized yet, but works ok quickly; starting with pics of 600 to 1100 kb resize by about 50% in microsoft office picture manager, then compress with xat jpeg optimizer, then resize again if needed for pixel count. | ||
| Jackbequick |
I'm with Nate, I like and use irfanview. I first resize the image to 800x600 or so so I can see the entire photo. Then I crop it to get rid of the unwanted stuff. And I decrease the color depth if I want to further change the size. MikeJ's photo above is 339kb as saved to my desktop. If I use irfanview and reduce the size to 640x480 and reduce the color density to 16 colors it is a 66kb image (an 80% reduction) and it looks like this:  There is no free lunch, you have to give up some size and quality to get smaller image sizes. Jack | ||
| Jlnance |
the colors are weird in an acid trip sorta way That happens when it is compressed too much. I believe you can adjust the compression with xat, though they may call it "quality" or something like that. He is what I have found. If you shrink the photo so its about 500 pixels wide, you don't have to much compression to get it under the 60k required by badweb. | ||
| Jlnance |
Anyone else use xv to compress pictures? | ||
| Bomber |
thanks, all -- it looks like i've found a new hobby if I want to post more than 2 or 3 pics at a time -- ah well, that's what train rides are for, I spose ;-} | ||
| Road_thing |
the colors are weird in an acid trip sorta way Stay away from the yellow acid, Bomber... rt | ||
| Bomber |
sheesh, NOW you tell me, I thought it was the BROWN acid ;-{ | ||
| Glitch |
Hey! where's that flashback I was promised! | ||
| Bomber |
Art Linkletter's kid got all of em! makes me mad, it does! | ||
| Glitch |
 | ||
| Doon |
Jlnance: Anyone else use xv to compress pictures? Not in a while, but I used to. Now if I need to convert stuff I tend to use mogrify (or I just export them all from iphoto @ the approiate size). Either that or let gallery handle the thumbnails/resizing for me... Guess I getting... -Patrick | ||
| Bomber |
test  | ||
| Bomber |
test  | ||
| Court |
......................this has been a test of the emergency wheel viewing system. In the event this had been a real wheel you would have been instructed to tune an AM radio to 1610kHz and await instructions from the authorities....no, wheely. . . I mean it. . the WHEEL authorities! | ||
| Reepicheep |
Thats a pretty old looking GE Meatball on those... motors? generators? Some decent low light work with the camera as well... | ||
| Jlnance |
Doon - I took a look at your website. It's impressive. Glad you're enjoying your XB. | ||
| Doon |
Jlnance: Thanks. Mostly stolen from other places or default templating as I Am artistically retarded when it comes to web stuff  But I do like to mess with the backend code. I haven't updated it in a while, redoing a webapp for work and just haven't had the energy to mess with it when I get home. As for enjoying the XB, I LOOOVE it. Have almost 1600 miles on it now. After Bear Mountain this weekend, will probably have 1900-2K. Not sure how far you dug into my site(s) but http://patrick.muldoon.us/gallery/TheGang shows gallery in action. Don't have to worry about creating thumbnails, it does the dirty work for ya | ||
| Bomber |
Reep -- meatball is on motors -- they power the Cablecar system in San Francisco --  they've taken great care to keep the gear operating, clearly, and looking good -- the folks that maintain this system show enormous pride in their baby (with good cuase  given the general hysteria surrounding transportation modes in the country these days, I was gobsmacked to able to get that close and personl to the machinery -- as for low-light work, my early training and work as a photo-journalist comes back from time to time -- the lil voice in my head keeps chanting "bracket/bracket/bracket/filmischeap/bracket" with these digi cams, you can even so how yer doin real time! ain't the late 20th century grand? ;-} thanks, all, for your assistance w/compression stuff -- it looks like I'm gonna have to whack on the pics the old fashioned way -- one at a time ;-} give me great respect for those that prolifically post good lookin shot here and elsewhere .. . . . | ||
| Blake |
You ought to be able to increase pic size quite a bit and stay below the 70 kB limit. With image optimizer you do need to first resize to 640x480 or 480x640 as applicable. Then set the quality to 70%, the magicompression to 60% or so and let the batch job run. Pics should come out below the limit. Using the magicompression is key. | ||
| Blake |
Also, be sure to unselect the "extra color" option.  Jack's 67 KB 16 color gif version. The image optimized jpeg looks better on my monitor and the file size is significantly smaller. (Message edited by Blake on May 19, 2006) | ||
| Bomber |
thanks Blake -- like the man sez, nuthing worth doin is ez ;-} | ||
| Reepicheep |
Bomber... go try a Fuji Finepix F10. It's the modern Leica you always wanted... | ||
| Bomber |
reep -- I sold my IIId do a gent that drooled messily all around it -- way more camera than I am a pic-snapper -- sides, karmically, he deserved it, I'm thinkin that said, the Cannon I'm using is way more camera than I am . . . . . . . well, you know it's as flexible as I need, and takes AAA batts (which makes it a skosh too big,, but is great on trips to, o, like, the Cablecar musem ;-} | ||
| Jackbequick |
You're right Blake, the xat and microcompression produces a both a better looking and smaller image. It is warmer, looks more realistic. I guess the biggest part of that can be attributed to the extra color shades with the 256 colors. Jack |
