Why are smaller dimension images LARGER than Original

brecklundin

Come on guys you are KILLING me. Yet again I run into being stabbed in the back by SM's screwed up one-size-fits-all logic. So I need to know how to work around it this time.

I NEED to control file size and expect images of a smaller dimension to be smaller in file size. For example if I limit the file size of the original image to 100K I fully expect the sizes of the files from that point down to be progressively smaller as logic would dictate. But tonight I find that just the opposite happens. I uploaded this file with a max file size of 100K and it ends up at about 72K:

http://www.brecklundin.com/For-Sale-Antiques-Collectibles/Jewelry-Silver/Silver-Wire-Gemstone/wiremring-30003/1199788721_STdVP-O-4.jpg

But the XL image is over 2x (almost 3x) LARGER in file size at about 160K:
http://www.brecklundin.com/For-Sale-Antiques-Collectibles/Jewelry-Silver/Silver-Wire-Gemstone/wiremring-30003/1199788721_STdVP-XL-4.jpg

I mean WTF guys? This is not right and is killing me for how I use the site. If this is a caching thing and I am just noticing that when I upload new versions it takes a while for the cache to catch up I am not sure yet. I am going to create a new gallery in just a bit which will answer that question.

If I am just missing some obscure setting, I have setup all the sharpening settings to ZERO in case that was screwing things up. But dang it I it is not unreasonable to expect file size to decrease as image dimensions decrease, that is the whole point of having smaller image dimensions, well it's like the predominant reason for most people. So, color me very confused and yet again disappointed in what SM is delivering me contrary normal expectations.

EDIT: Freaking hell guys, the MEDIUM image has a file size as large as the uploaded ORIGINAL image!!

jfriend

I'm guessing that you're using a lot of JPEG compression on your original (what is your JPEG compression setting?).

And, I'm guessing that Smugmug's standard compression level for the sizes it generates isn't as high a compression as what you're using on the original and that's why the smaller pixel count sizes are larger. They downsize the image, then compress it with their standard settings. Because their standard settings use less compression than your original, the image gets bigger even though it has fewer pixels.

Smugmug has carefully chosen their compression level settings for the generated sizes to avoid JPEG artifacts showing in all types of images while still keeping the images as small as possible (a fine balance between file size and image quality). Since Smugmug doesn't give you control over this JPEG compression level for the web-generated sizes on a per-image basis, there is no way for you to adjust this.

So ... unless something just happens to be broken right now at Smugmug, that's my guess for what's happening. I have no idea what you can do about it. I'm guessing that Smugmug just doesn't support as high a compression level as you're trying to use in this instance because for many images that high a compression level shows visible artifacts (perhaps not in the images you are trying to use though).

brecklundin

Hey Ya John,

...thanks for the input, it helps. And yeah, I am using a 60% compression/quality level right now out of LR3.x to get the size of the original down to something manageable for my purposes. I had sorta guessed it was what SM is doing while resizing for me and it's not an issue when I use less compression on the original because the tools used my SM do make the file sizes progressively smaller. But this is only relative to when you use a nice large original not an already compressed original.

I would love to have the option of a switch/setting on a gallery to not use any compression if us users so chose. Or even better to set a "quality"/compression level ourselves. Then all they would need do is resize the image based on our settings for that particular gallery. Then they would not need worry about JPG artifact thanks to the cumulative effects of repeated compressions. And honestly I expected there would be a setting given that we can control sharpening.

Right now I am completely at a loss as to how to fix the issue without losing any advantage the automation is supposed to provide. I guess I am just not the sort of user SM really wants since I keep bumping into issues around using images outside the site. And I really do not want to upload a series of images with each dimensions needed.

And here is a weird anecdote, I tired using the "custom size" option replacing the predefined file token in the URL (you know S, M, L, XL and so on) with 450x450 and the file size is actually about 3K-4K smaller than using the URL for "medium". Weird huh? Still it's not as small as I would like for that size images, I really need them under 40K. But if I upload images of that size my customers lose the ability to see the larger images which contain the detail level needed for the intended purpose.

jfriend

brecklundin wrote: »

Hey Ya John,

...thanks for the input, it helps. And yeah, I am using a 60% compression/quality level right now out of LR3.x to get the size of the original down to something manageable for my purposes. I had sorta guessed it was what SM is doing while resizing for me and it's not an issue when I use less compression on the original because the tools used my SM do make the file sizes progressively smaller. But this is only relative to when you use a nice large original not an already compressed original.

I would love to have the option of a switch/setting on a gallery to not use any compression if us users so chose. Or even better to set a "quality"/compression level ourselves. Then all they would need do is resize the image based on our settings for that particular gallery. Then they would not need worry about JPG artifact thanks to the cumulative effects of repeated compressions. And honestly I expected there would be a setting given that we can control sharpening.

Right now I am completely at a loss as to how to fix the issue without losing any advantage the automation is supposed to provide. I guess I am just not the sort of user SM really wants since I keep bumping into issues around using images outside the site. And I really do not want to upload a series of images with each dimensions needed.

And here is a weird anecdote, I tired using the "custom size" option replacing the predefined file token in the URL (you know S, M, L, XL and so on) with 450x450 and the file size is actually about 3K-4K smaller than using the URL for "medium". Weird huh? Still it's not as small as I would like for that size images, I really need them under 40K. But if I upload images of that size my customers lose the ability to see the larger images which contain the detail level needed for the intended purpose.

Anecdotally, I think the custom size images are a bit lower quality than the pre-built sizes. I always assumed this was because they have to be built fast (on demand) so perhaps they couldn't use quite the same algorithms that they do when building the pre-built sizes which they can afford a little more time on because they're done in batch before the gallery is displayed rather than real-time while someone is waiting for the image to show. They might also be using a different compression setting on the custom sizes (I really don't know). The custom sizes used to be noticeably lower quality than the pre-builts - now I think I only notice it sometimes.

I think I've run out of what I know about the subject. I'm not aware of any way you can lower the JPEG quality level of the pre-built sizes to reduce file size.

When I've wanted that fine a control over web sizes, I just do the resize myself with the settings I want, upload that and use the original on that image and then I'm just using Smugmug as a storage server rather than relying on their resize algorithms to do my specialty tasks.

I know from time to time that some other people have asked for the ability to decrease the level of compression on the generated web sizes. Smugmug has chosen not to offer that level of control, probably because they feel the need to manage the storage use and web-site speed and don't want users cranking down the compression and causing a lot more storage to be used than is really needed and making their own galleries perform a lot slower. I can honestly never remember a request to increase the level of compression on the web sizes.

The ideal scenario would be if they could detect what level of compression you were using on your original and use the lower of yours or theirs so if you want to crush the filesize down on the original by using high compression, they would honor that in the generated smaller sizes. But, I don't think there's an easy way to detect such a thing in your uploaded original and there may be other issues even if they could.

brecklundin

I am gonna try something to see what happens when I re-upload the same images are normal quality of about 92 and see what it does to the file sizes for the other images dimensions. I'm not that cranky over this but it is affecting business because a LOT of my customers are in the middle of podunk-nowhere and on connections only marginally better than dial-up. But we'll see how the new results compare.

OOPS! I forgot to tell LR to use new file names so apparently I am overwriting the previous files...d'oh? hahaha...

jfriend

brecklundin wrote: »

I am gonna try something to see what happens when I re-upload the same images are normal quality of about 92 and see what it does to the file sizes for the other images dimensions. I'm not that cranky over this but it is affecting business because a LOT of my customers are in the middle of podunk-nowhere and on connections only marginally better than dial-up. But we'll see how the new results compare.

OOPS! I forgot to tell LR to use new file names so apparently I am overwriting the previous files...d'oh? hahaha...

I added a few more paragraphs to my previous post while you were already posting.

brecklundin

jfriend wrote: »

Anecdotally, I think the custom size images are a bit lower quality than the pre-built sizes. I always assumed this was because they have to be built fast (on demand) so perhaps they couldn't use quite the same algorithms that they do when building the pre-built sizes which they can afford a little more time on because they're done in batch before the gallery is displayed rather than real-time while someone is waiting for the image to show. They might also be using a different compression setting on the custom sizes (I really don't know). The custom sizes used to be noticeably lower quality than the pre-builts - now I think I only notice it sometimes.

I think I've run out of what I know about the subject. I'm not aware of any way you can lower the JPEG quality level of the pre-built sizes to reduce file size.

When I've wanted that fine a control over web sizes, I just do the resize myself with the settings I want, upload that and use the original on that image and then I'm just using Smugmug as a storage server rather than relying on their resize algorithms to do my specialty tasks.

Yup, just on the quick test I think you are correct that there is a slightly lower quality level on custom compared to predefined images. However if my example is representative the difference is minimal.

I think your method when you need specific files sizes is probably the best work around. What I can do is just create a secondary export preset in LR to create the images I need specifically then send those to a special unpublished gallery where I can link to the "original". But when people want to view larger images send them to the "real" gallery. Since the files will be smaller anyway the second export won't take too long. Though right now I am traveling and my connection speeds are HORRIBLE unless I leach off good old Starbucks!! hahaha...good thing I have earned my "gold star" from them already this year....

Thanks for the help, nice to have a sounding board for this stuff...especially one who apparently, much like me, never sleeps!! hehehehe....:ivar

brecklundin

jfriend wrote: »

I added a few more paragraphs to my previous post while you were already posting.

thanks gottcha!!

jfriend wrote: »

I know from time to time that some other people have asked for the ability to decrease the level of compression on the generated web sizes. Smugmug has chosen not to offer that level of control, probably because they feel the need to manage the storage use and web-site speed and don't want users cranking down the compression and causing a lot more storage to be used than is really needed and making their own galleries perform a lot slower. I can honestly never remember a request to increase the level of compression on the web sizes.

The ideal scenario would be if they could detect what level of compression you were using on your original and use the lower of yours or theirs so if you want to crush the filesize down on the original by using high compression, they would honor that in the generated smaller sizes. But, I don't think there's an easy way to detect such a thing in your uploaded original and there may be other issues even if they could.

I know, I'm just weird that way....using stuff in ways others might not use it. But my primary use of SM is not photography which is just a hobby. Mostly I use my images for eBay stuff and forums images while getting solid speed from the servers as well as no bandwidth worries. One day I am gonna spend a month working on real custom stuff I have in mind but, hey with luck I'll be long dead and out of SM's hair before I have that sort of time, so why worry about it now.

As for people asking to be able to increase compression, that I honestly don't get since we really don't lose anything at the 92% (or whatever it really is called) point. With all the tools out there I bet there are not too many times a person genuinely needs that extra 8% or so. But given I don't deal with images on that level I'm not going to pretend I have the slightest clue what the heck I am saying.

I like your idea of SM auto-detecting the compression from the image data. Perhaps if SM let users store the compression number a specific EXIF field it would save the complication of detecting the compression. Like you I am not sure there is any way, let alone easy, to determine the compression level.

For now I think you helped me with a workable solution that is not too awful. So back to cataloging the rest of this estate I am working on. I'm already a week behind but, life happens it seems. Who needs sleep!!

Andy

brecklundin wrote:

Come on guys you are KILLING me. Yet again I run into being stabbed in the back by SM's screwed up one-size-fits-all logic. So I need to know how to work around it this time.

I NEED to control file size and expect images of a smaller dimension to be smaller in file size. For example if I limit the file size of the original image to 100K I fully expect the sizes of the files from that point down to be progressively smaller as logic would dictate. But tonight I find that just the opposite happens. I uploaded this file with a max file size of 100K and it ends up at about 72K

brecklundin wrote: »

EDIT: Freaking hell guys, the MEDIUM image has a file size as large as the uploaded ORIGINAL image!!

Your files are very small. So in this case medium is the same as original. And in fact, all the display copies are the same size (except of course for the thumbnails). When the files are smaller than our largest display copy size (X3, 1600x1200) we won't actually make new versions, we just use your original size, so they're all the same. More: http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality

This is the info about your file right from our file system:

brecklundin

bull**** Andy...

(Mod edited)

Andy

brecklundin wrote: »

bull**** (edited) Andy...

Um.. what?

That is the info of your file in our filesystem on SmugMug. I'll ask you to watch your language please, we do not allow profanity of ANY KIND.

Now, if you'd like more help I'm happy to do so but only if you can remain civil.

brecklundin

refund my last two years and I'll go away otherwise eat me.

Andy

brecklundin wrote: »

refund my last two years and I'll go away otherwise eat me.

I'm sorry but you've lost the privilege of using our public forums for while. If you have further questions about how this works, you may write ATTN: Andy at our help desk. http://smugmug.com/help/emailreal