problem with 'save photos as' function

[gdpaige]

The 'save photos as' function in the new v5 estimates file size poorly, or very differently, than previous versions. I often use this function to create small jpg images for posts, emails, etc., from RAW images, and the estimate of file size is very useful. What used to be estimates of, say, 300kb in older versions produced actual files of roughly that size. The new version shows estimates for the exact same operation as under 100kb, and yet the files ends up properly as about 300kb. the actual end-product seems the same, but the estimates are useless. Thoughts?

[Kirk Baker]

The 'save photos as' function in the new v5 estimates file size poorly, or very differently, than previous versions. I often use this function to create small jpg images for posts, emails, etc., from RAW images, and the estimate of file size is very useful. What used to be estimates of, say, 300kb in older versions produced actual files of roughly that size. The new version shows estimates for the exact same operation as under 100kb, and yet the files ends up properly as about 300kb. the actual end-product seems the same, but the estimates are useless. Thoughts?

http://forums.camerabits.com/index.php?topic=4688.0

Please post a JPEG screenshot of your Save As dialog showing its settings.  Use the 'Attachments and other options' link when you're composing your reply to this message and there you'll be able to upload your JPEG format screenshot.

Thanks,

-Kirk

[gdpaige]

Thanks, Kirk. Here is an example, though the size setting is larger than the earlier post mentioned. Note the size estimate here, however. This is the same settings I have used for years in earlier versions, and further, recall that the resulting image files are larger and appropriate for my intent. Odd.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kirk Baker]

Thanks, Kirk. Here is an example, though the size setting is larger than the earlier post mentioned. Note the size estimate here, however. This is the same settings I have used for years in earlier versions, and further, recall that the resulting image files are larger and appropriate for my intent. Odd.

I see you don't have Subsample Chroma turned on.  That will reduce the size by an additional 40%.  Perhaps you used to have that setting turned on in the past?

-Kirk

[gdpaige]

Kirk:  Oh, my. I see my problem in retrospect. It has nothing to do with settings and is just the difference in how the size estimate is presented--right next to the quality value linked to the same slider. My brain goes right to the 0-100 scale, and not to the size in kb or mb to the right. This may be confusing to others. Perhaps those two values can be separated and demarcated more clearly. I was simply side-tracked. The older versions did not have this duality. Sorry for the glitch on my part, but perhaps the silver lining is a preventive measure for clarity.
cheers
Gary

[Kirk Baker]

Gary,

Kirk:  Oh, my. I see my problem in retrospect. It has nothing to do with settings and is just the difference in how the size estimate is presented--right next to the quality value linked to the same slider. My brain goes right to the 0-100 scale, and not to the size in kb or mb to the right. This may be confusing to others. Perhaps those two values can be separated and demarcated more clearly. I was simply side-tracked. The older versions did not have this duality. Sorry for the glitch on my part, but perhaps the silver lining is a preventive measure for clarity.

PM 4.6 and earlier didn't show a numeric quality value.  PM 5 does.  There is demarcation via the colon ( : ) that separates the two numbers.

-Kirk

[Warren B]

Gary,

Kirk:  Oh, my. I see my problem in retrospect. It has nothing to do with settings and is just the difference in how the size estimate is presented--right next to the quality value linked to the same slider. My brain goes right to the 0-100 scale, and not to the size in kb or mb to the right. This may be confusing to others. Perhaps those two values can be separated and demarcated more clearly. I was simply side-tracked. The older versions did not have this duality. Sorry for the glitch on my part, but perhaps the silver lining is a preventive measure for clarity.

PM 4.6 and earlier didn't show a numeric quality value.  PM 5 does.  There is demarcation via the colon ( : ) that separates the two numbers.

-Kirk

I didn't get this either until reading the above explanation. Now it makes sense.

Many thanks.

Warren B