I'm not very hopeful that this is actually even possible because JPG is a lossy compression format, but I'll ask anyway.
I have some incomplete metadata about an image, and need to figure out the dimensions without loading the file into memory, or using command-line tools like imagemagick.
This is what I know:
file format is JPG (JPG is an 8-bit image format).
total file size is 96284 bytes.
image width is 600 pixels.
Assuming the height could be variable, is there a mathematical equation I can use to calculate the height predictably?
No, there is no relation between the number of pixels and the compressed size.
You can try your luck by analyzing the file header to get the width/height tags. A library like jpeglib allows you to read just the header, but it takes some effort to integrate it.
Just wondering:
I'm trying to set up an adaptive image handler in Coldfusion8, which resizes images for smaller screensizes.
I have it working allright and am currently playing around with the different resize options found here
What I notice is no matter what method I'm using, they all take time, reduce the image quality and not really reduce the image size, so for example:
IMG 1 IMG 2
Original 23K 900x360px 53K 900x360px
Blackman 22k 320x128px 52K 320x128px
highPerformance 21K 320x128px 32K 320x128px
nearest 25K " 38K "
The idea was to resize images for smaller displays. Right now I'm not really reducing anything, I'm only drainging the processor for resizing and output blurry images and the same file size.
Question:
Why should I bother resizing then? I might as well send the original file which #900x360px #23K. At least that images will be sharp vs. a resized blurry image with 320x1280px. Is there a way to make resizing images in Coldfusion worthwhile in terms of file size and/or image quality?
Thanks for inputs!Cldfu
I think what you fiddle with are quality/speed of the resize algorithm, not compression.
To compress with better file size, set the JPEG compression quality using the quality attribute (default to 0.75)
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbec22c24-7945.html
If cfimage doesn't satisfy your needs, use imagemagick
I would like to know which image format inside PDF's is rendered fastest. I tested mupdf code and I figured out that image decoding takes an important part in rendering time. So I would like to know if there are image formats that would not impact very much on cpu load.
I dont think this is really a question of what is best simply within PDFs, however:
As a general rule, I have always found that pre-rendering the image's size to the actual size you wish to present on screen is the best way to get both size and rendering speed to what you want them to be. Simply dragging an image into a document doesnt bring the pixel count (thus size) down as most document types simply put a display size tag around the full image. This causes the display program to have to real-time resize the image for display. The less the display program has to real-time resize the image the faster it will display.
As for file types:
Bitmaps are generally considered the fastest to display as they (for the most part) are copy and paste the color for each pixel onto the screen pixel. They are generally considered the biggest file. Depending on your images, if they aren't noisy (have a lot of solid runs of the same color) then they can be RLE encoded. I have seen many RLE encoded images that are indeed even smaller than JPEG images, but it is very situational.
JPEGs tend to be the smallest for transfer and also generally display decently quick. As an opinion they are also the lowest quality images (look close, if you started with a perfectly clean image, JPEG compression will add noise to it unless using lossless compression)
PNGs tend to be my favorite. They can be lossless compressed, can be fairly small if using flattened PNGs (i.e. NOT ADOBE FIREWORKS PNGs) and do produce crisp images that render fairly quickly.
So to sum up: I would probably recommend flattened PNGs that have been pre-sized and saved to the size you wish to display on screen.
Consider an application handling uploading of potentially very large PNG files.
All uploaded files must be stored to disk for later retrieval. However, the PNG files can be up to 30 MB in size, but disk storage limitations gives a maximum per file size of 1 MB.
The problem is to take an input PNG of file size up to 30 MB and produce an output PNG of file size below 1 MB.
This operation will obviously be lossy - and reduction in image quality, colors, etc is not a problem. However, one thing that must not be changed is the image dimension. Hence, an input file of dimension 800x600 must produce an output file of dimension 800x600.
The above requirements outlined above are strict and cannot be changed.
Using ImageMagick (or some other open source tool) how would you go about reducing the file size of input PNG-files of size ~30 MB to a maximum of 1 MB per file, without changing image dimensions?
PNG is not a lossy image format, so you would likely need to convert the image into another format-- most likely JPEG. JPEG has a settable "quality" factor-- you could simply keep reducing the quality factor until you got an image that was small enough. All of this can be done without changing the image resolution.
Obviously, depending on the image, the loss of visual quality may be substantial. JPEG does best for "true life" images, such as pictures from cameras. It does not do as well for logos, screen shots, or other images with "sharp" transitions from light to dark. (PNG, on the other hand, has the opposite behavior-- it's best for logos, etc.)
However, at 800x600, it likely will be very easy to get a JPEG down under 1MB. (I would be very surprised to see a 30MB file at those smallish dimensions.) In fact, even uncompressed, the image would only be around 1.4MB:
800 pixels * 600 pixels * 3 Bytes / color = 1,440,000 Bytes = 1.4MB
Therefore, you only need a 1.4:1 compression ratio to get the image down to 1MB. Depending on the type of image, the PNG compression may very well provide that level of compression. If not, JPEG almost certainly could-- JPEG compression ratios on the order of 10:1 are not uncommon. Again, the quality / size of the output will depend on the type of image.
Finally, while I have not used ImageMagick in a little while, I'm almost certain there are options to re-compress an image using a specific quality factor. Read through the docs, and start experimenting!
EDIT: Looks like it should, indeed, be pretty easy with ImageMagick. From the docs:
$magick> convert input.png -quality 75 output.jpg
Just keep playing with the quality value until you get a suitable output.
Your example is troublesome because a 30MB image at 800x600 resolution is storing 500 bits per pixel. Clearly wildly unrealistic. Please give us real numbers.
Meanwhile, the "cheap and cheerful" approach I would try would be as follows: scale the image down by a factor of 6, then scale it back up by a factor of 6, then run it through PNG compression. If you get lucky, you'll reduce image size by a factor of 36. If you get unlucky the savings will be more like 6.
pngtopng big.png | pnmscale -reduce 6 | pnmscale 6 | pnmtopng > big.png
If that's not enough you can toss a ppmquant in the middle (on the small image) to reduce the number of colors. (The examples are netpbm/pbmplus, which I have always found easier to understand than ImageMagick.)
To know whether such a solution is reasonable, we have to know the true numbers of your problem.
Also, if you are really going to throw away the information permanently, you are almost certainly better off using JPEG compression, which is designed to lose information reasonably gracefully. Is there some reason JPEG is not appropriate for your application?
Since the size of an image file is directly related to the image dimensions and the number of colours, you seem to have only one choice: reduce the number of colours.
And ~30MB down to 1MB is a very large reduction.
It would be difficult to achieve this ratio with a conversion to monochrome.
It depends a lot on what you want at the end, I often like to reduce the number of colors while perserving the size. In many many cases the reduced colors does not matter. Here is an example of reducing the colors to 254.
convert -colors 254 in.png out.png
You can try the pngquant utility. It is very simple to install and to use. And it can compress your PNGs a lot without visible quality loss.
Once you install it try something like this:
pngquant yourfile.png
pngquant --quality=0-70 yourfile.png
For my demo image (generated by imagemagick) the first command reduces 350KB to 110KB, and the second one reduces it to 65KB.
Step 1: Decrease the image to 1/16 of its original size.
Step 2: Decrease the amount of colors.
Step 3: Increase the size of the image back to its original size.
I know you want to preserve the pixel size, but can you reduce the pixel size and adjust the DPI stored with the image so that the display size is preserved? It depends on what client you'll be using to view the images, but most should observe it. If you are using the images on the web, then you can just set the pixel size of the <img> tag.
It depends on they type of image, is it a real life picture or computer generated image,
for real life images png will do very little it might even not compress at all, use jpg for those images, it the image has a limited number of different colors (it can have a 24 bit image depth but the number of unique images will be low) png can compress quite nicely.
png is basicly an implementation of zip for images so if a lot of pixels are the same you can have a rather nice compression ratio, if you need lossless compression don't do resizing.
use optipng it reduce size without loss
http://optipng.sourceforge.net/
Try ImageOptim https://imageoptim.com/mac it is free and open source
If you want to modify the image size in ubuntu, you can try "gimp".
I have tried couple of image editing apps in ubuntu and this seemed to be the best among them.
Installation:
Open terminal
Type: sudo apt install gimp-plugin-registry
Give admin password. You'll need net connection for this.
Once installed, open the image with GIMP image editor. Then go to: File > Export as > Click on 'Export' button
You will get a small window, where check box on "Show preview in image window". Once you check this option, you will get to see the current size of the file along with Quality level.
Adjust the quality level to increase/decrease the file size.
Once adjusting is done, click on 'Export' button finally to save the file.
Right click on the image. Select open with paint. Click on resize. Click on pixel and change the horizontal to 250 or 200.
That's the only thing. It is the fastest way for those who are using Windows XP or Windows 7.
I'd like to save an existing image as a PNG or JPG at a given file size, eg, 100KB.
PNG uses lossless compression so you can not compress it below a certain level.
In .NET you can save a JPG with compression, and guess how big the file will be when completed.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.drawing.image.save(VS.80).aspx
- See the "Save JPEG image with compression value" section.
Also, you could resize the image dimensions to make it smaller.
Only if using JPG 2000 you could set the file size to a specific value. Using JPG, you'll have to try different quality values and using PNG will get you one size for a given image and a compression level - you can only try to resize the image which will give you a smaller size.
You could also try to resize the image so that an uncompressed image would have the size you want, but then PNG and especially JPG will often have a much lower file size.
For PNG there isn't really a quality setting, so you can't really control the file size.
Jpg has a quality setting that determines how good a quality the image will be. lower quality settings result in smaller files. However, there is normally no option for "give the quality needed for a file of size x".
You can achieve the same result using a rather inefficient approach of converting to jpg in memory, seeing how big the output is, adjusting the quality up or down and repeating until you get close enough. It might sound terrible, but if your images aren't too big you may find no one notices the short delay while you do this.