Sign in to follow this  
ROFERLI

Picture size

Recommended Posts

Hi guys and girls,

I'm working on an image (JPG) that is 282 KB. What I'm doing is creating 10 layers with the same picture and save it as JPG, AGAIN. I want it

to be 10x (times) heavier. I mean, the end result should be 2,820 KB! HOWEVER, when I save the image as JPG the software says that it's needs to flatten the image in order

to save it. I don't mind if it's flatten the image or do whatever else since the end result is what I'm looking for which is JPG 2,820 KB.

 

What I find out after going to the image properties is that the image is much lighter, I mean 223 KB. Why adding an image that is heavier in the beggining ends up in something much lighter as an end result?

I really need it to be a heavier image with all it's properties!

 

Please, is there anyone that could explain me why it happens and how I can solve it and achieve what I'm looking for?

 

Many Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings ROLERI,

You need to get off of the floor and stop laughing so much, also I think that your image cannot be saved and will never have all of its properties! ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a joke although it might be claimed it was now.

 

I'd think the explanation as to why a 10 layer image is not 10x the original image in size 282KB would be quite simple. If you don't understand layers it might not be as obvious as it is to some. 

 

If a top layer has any 100% opaque areas the parts of layers below those areas become redundant, ie. they're not needed. So in the flattened image they're not added together they're actually subtracted. It can't be any more opaque than 100%

 

It is easy to demonstrate this; just find a JPG picture, open it with PDN. Open a new image of the same size with a 100% transparent background and create a vignette with the Gradient > Radial tool ie. a 100% transparent circle which graduates to 100% opaque black. Save that alongside the original JPG image file . Now combine the vignette and the image as two layers in PDN, flatten and save that too.

 

Let's say the 800x600 vignette JPG is 80KB and the original image JPG is 220KB. If the image + vignette added together the combined image would be a 300KB JPG.

 

The actual combined JPG size is of course bigger than the vignette but as the vignette graduates, towards 100% opacity, less and less of the layer underneath remains visible. Where it reaches 100% opacity (black) nothing of the underlying image needs to be rendered. The result is a combined JPG file size likely half that of the original image and a third of the sum of the images used in the two layers.      

 

 

Edited by IHaveNoName

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not a joke at all!!! If I posted a question here is because I really don't know! Simple as that!

Thanks, IHaveNoName, I really do appreciate your answer. However it still not so clear for me how I can solve my problem!

Do you think that if I create a layer between every other layer and having it 100 white it would solve it? I know it sounds silly, but I

really don't know how to have what I need.

 

Anyways, many thanks!

Edited by ROFERLI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might help to know why you need the image to be "heavier"

 

Also, adding layers to an image that will end up being exported as JPEG will have no effect on its file size. Only the flattened result, combined with the Quality setting when you use the Save Configuration Dialog, will affect this. If you set Quality to 100 and the image size is still not what you want, adding layers won't help. The image will just need to be made more visually complex.

 

And you should be prepared for the possibility that what you're trying to do won't be possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings IHaveNoName,

I thought it was a joke because I could see no serious reason to have layers stacked on top of each for the purpose of increasing file size as if bytes have mass.

File size is dependent on three things; the dimensions, the color depth, and the file format! A file that is 1000 x 1000 pixels that is filled with a single color is smaller than a file that is 1000 x 1000 pixels but contains 64 thousand colors.


In the attached compressed folder (1k sq Images.zip) the color 1000 x 1000 pixel BMP file is 2.86 MB (3,000,054 bytes), while the color 1000 x 1000 pixel JPG file is 43.0 KB (44,107 bytes). The black 1000 x 1000 pixel BMP file is 977 KB (1,001,078 bytes), while the black 1000 x 1000 JPG file is 16.2 KB (16,608 bytes).

1k sq Images.zip

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. This is the reason...

 

I work with Radionics and I use softwares for that. I send frequencies to agricultural fields or to people that I work with. They can be sent in the form of sounds or images.

That said, normally I send one by one the images. What I was trying to achieve was to fuse all the images together instead of sending one by one.

I have one image that is 282 KB and I was trying to create a JPG image that has 3 equally images together. So, Instead of sending(broadcasting with the software) this same image 3 times I wanted to fuse it and send it just once. However once I create the 3 layers with the same image and save it as JPG it gets flattened and the result is 223KB. Which is lower than the original one. For me, it means that something got lost! I should have at least 846 KB.

 

The images, since they are coded, they must have all it's properties without losing any information. It's the same as if you take 3 pill of vitamin C (1g each) you want to be sure you get the full effect (which is 3g) and not half of it (1,5 g).

 

I hope it makes sense what I'm trying to explain.

 

Please, is there a way I could solve it?

I really need to solve this!

 

Again, many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings ROFERLI,

Why not put all of your images into a compressed archive folder (Zip file) and send them as a bundle?  JPG is a lossy compressed file format. Can your software save the images as PNG files instead? PNG is not a lossy image compression format. If so, why not put all of the PNG files into a compressed archive (Zip file) and send the bundle that way? Saving a group of image layers as a single conventional JPG is not a possible solution for your problem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_compression


How to create a ZIP folder and extract files in Windows 10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Z1Uwmxdshqc

 

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HyRez,

 

Thanks for your interest! The idea of having them on PNG format is a bad idea. However sending the images

in a ZIP format will not work since the images need to be seen.

If I save the images in PNG it will flattened the work done on Paint and probably some properties will be missing.

Edited by ROFERLI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greentings ROFERLI,

Saving your work to a JPG file will flatten your images also. If you do not want your images to flatten you must convert the PDN file of Paint.Net to a PSD (Photo Shop Document file) or a PDF (Portable Document Format). Most computers these days can open a PDF file.

FYI:
Typically more data will be lost in a JPG than a PNG file. If the
receiver of the Zip folder is running a Windows computer, the files within the ZIP can be viewed without even extracting them from the compressed folder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

 

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The images I use inside of a Radionic software and it just reads JPG or PNG images. That's why I need it to be on these formats!

Normally the images I broadcast them one by one without any problem. What I'm trying to do is to make the process much faster by  fusing them together.

 

I hope it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, HyReZ said:

Greentings ROFERLI,

Saving your work to a JPG file will flatten your images also. If you do not want your images to flatten you must convert the PDN file of Paint.Net to a PSD (Photo Shop Document file) or a PDF (Portable Document Format). Most computers these days can open a PDF file.

FYI:
Typically more data will be lost in a JPG than a PNG file. If the
receiver of the Zip folder is running a Windows computer, the files within the ZIP can be viewed without even extracting them from the compressed folder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

 

 

You forgot to mention .ora format. But, it's less complete than .psd. For what it's worth, there's practically zero difference in feature interchangeability or something on the line of that between pdn exported psd, and ora as paint.net lacks non-destructive editing. If PDN support layered TIFF, that can work too, but not as well as psd or ora for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest and most apparent solution is to store your images in a compressed archive (ZIP folder) and send them as a batch.
Does the Radionic software run on a Windows system? If so, your problem is solved; if not then ZIP must extract to a media that can be read by the Radionic software.

 

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Reptillian,

I was just informed that ROFERLI's Radionic software only imports JPG and PNG files.
Paint.NET is not a solution for his problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ROFERLI said:

So what's the solution? Since I need the picture and it needs to be on JPG or PNG

Difficult, uh?

The easiest and most apparent solution is to store your images in a compressed archive (ZIP folder) and send them as a batch.
Does the Radionic software run on a Windows system? If so, your problem is solved; if not then ZIP must extract to a media that can be read by the Radionic software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW

 

What do these new age technology Radionic images look like?

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this