Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ZIP Photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:49:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
should ZIPPING make?
Thanks

--
Jim,

More about : zip photos

Anonymous
January 31, 2005 7:10:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim L wrote:

> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough
> to e-mail they really don't go down in size all that much. How
> much of a difference should ZIPPING make?

When zipping JPEGs? Practically none. JPEGs are already very well
compressed.

Reduce the size in pixels and save at a lower quality instead.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 8:11:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim L wrote:

> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
> they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
> should ZIPPING make?

In an ideal world none! A JPEG file is already very well compressed.

In the real world it might get you about 5% decrease in size on a good
day - which is not really worth the bother. And if it compresses much
more than that you should consider the possibility that the file is
damaged...

Regards,
Martin Brown
Related resources
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:32:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim L wrote:
> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
> they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
> should ZIPPING make?
> Thanks
>
If the output of your camera is .jpg, then zipping is not worth the
effort, and may actually make some files larger.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:15:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

As jpg is already compressed format, "zipping" it one more time will not
make it considerably smaller.

Jim L wrote:
> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
> they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
> should ZIPPING make?
> Thanks
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:18:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <kssLd.3359$S3.2029@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jim L" <pcv@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
> they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
> should ZIPPING make?
> Thanks

Zipping text compresses to a large extent because the compression
converts the text to text(!) and adds information as to which font
should be used as well as any other formatting.

The only reason to zip photos is you are only downloading one file
instead of many. Zipping also helps protect the integrity of the the
files.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:18:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:18:19 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <kssLd.3359$S3.2029@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Jim L" <pcv@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a 4MP camera. When I ZIP photos to make them small enough to e-mail
>> they really don't go down in size all that much. How much of a difference
>> should ZIPPING make?
>> Thanks
>
>Zipping text compresses to a large extent because the compression
>converts the text to text(!) and adds information as to which font
>should be used as well as any other formatting.
>
>The only reason to zip photos is you are only downloading one file
>instead of many. Zipping also helps protect the integrity of the the
>files.


ZIP is losless compression, which doesn't buy
a whole lot with image files -- from my
experience, 15% at best.

JPG on the other hand is a compression
method specifically designed for photos,
and works like a champ -- but yes, it
is "lossy".

High-quality JPG can easily reduce
file sizes by 60% or so with no discernable
loss in image quality.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
!