Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Digital Photography & Imaging Digital Photography & Imaging
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > >

How can I shrink image from 1.75 Mb to 200Kb without changing the dimensions?


(!)

cvandy's Avatar
cvandy cvandy is offline
Computer Specs
Junior Member with 15 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 12:35 PM #1
How can I shrink image from 1.75 Mb to 200Kb without changing the dimensions?
HI,

I am trying to change lower the file size of an image so that I can upload it into our crm software for a mass email. The file size is 1.75Mb. The crm software will not let you upload anything above 200Kb. If I change the dimensions of the image it will be unreadable so this is not an option. So the dimensions need to stay the same but the actual file size needs to shrink to 200Kb. Thanks ahead of time for your help
Armiris's Avatar
Armiris Armiris is offline
Computer Specs
Member with 572 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 12:43 PM #2
Compress it into a zip archive, a rar archive, or another compression format.
cwwozniak's Avatar
cwwozniak   (Chuck) cwwozniak is offline cwwozniak is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions. cwwozniak has a Profile Picture
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 46,556 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois - USA
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 01:01 PM #3
What is the current file format (JPG, GIF, PNG, TIF, etc.)?

What kind of image is it (photograph, line drawing, cartoon)?
cvandy's Avatar
cvandy cvandy is offline
Computer Specs
Junior Member with 15 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 03:17 PM #4
It is a jpg and it is an advertisement like you see in a newspaper. It has to stay jpg as well and zipping it will not work
caraewilton's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 1,347 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Africa
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 03:27 PM #5
I have a suggestion, could you not use irfanview to change the dpi. Maybe 96 dpi.
This should make a difference and there is a setting which allows you to keep the orginal size. I have just experimented. Reduced a 9mb file down to 2mb.

As an aside, my understanding is that jpg are compressed thus zipping them will not change the size. Is this correct?
fairnooks's Avatar
Account Disabled with 5,251 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Experience: Advanced
09-Apr-2008, 03:34 PM #6
You'll do well using Fast Stone Image viewer. You open up the image and then save as..., click on advanced and set the compression slider to more compression and then click on update preview and note what the new filesize will be. Keep adjusting the compression and updating the preview until you have the new image size where you need it to be.
cwwozniak's Avatar
cwwozniak   (Chuck) cwwozniak is offline cwwozniak is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions. cwwozniak has a Profile Picture
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 46,556 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois - USA
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 03:48 PM #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by caraewilton View Post
I have a suggestion, could you not use irfanview to change the dpi. Maybe 96 dpi.
This should make a difference and there is a setting which allows you to keep the orginal size. I have just experimented. Reduced a 9mb file down to 2mb.

As an aside, my understanding is that jpg are compressed thus zipping them will not change the size. Is this correct?
I am not familiar with irfanview but it sounds like it is reducing the number of pixels in the picture to make the file smaller. To do that it is combining multiple pixels into one. That is also a one way path. There is no way to accurately expand a single pixel into multiple pixels with their original colors. If you tried printing the reduced sized file at the same physical size as the original, the result would appear a lot more blurred and pixelated.

You are correct that a jpeg file is fairly well compressed to begin with. Zipping it may reduce the file size by a fraction of a percent.
__________________
Chuck W.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen F. Roberts
caraewilton's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 1,347 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Africa
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 03:53 PM #8
Hi Fairnooks. DPI refers to how many dots are used to make the picture in a square inch measurement. Compression in terms of jpg means the amount of dots removed and then algorithms used to replace the missing info. Is this correct? What is better, lower dpi or higher compression? Which gives you the best image at the end of the day? I mean you can reduce dpi until you have the desired file size, alternatively you can increase compression until you have the required file size. So which method would leave you with the best looking picture?

Sorry I think I am asking lots of technical type questions? Just was wondering?
caraewilton's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 1,347 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Africa
Experience: Intermediate
09-Apr-2008, 04:00 PM #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwwozniak View Post
I am not familiar with irfanview but it sounds like it is reducing the number of pixels in the picture to make the file smaller. To do that it is combining multiple pixels into one. That is also a one way path. There is no way to accurately expand a single pixel into multiple pixels with their original colors. If you tried printing the reduced sized file at the same physical size as the original, the result would appear a lot more blurred and pixelated.
I have found that 96dpi still looks fine on screen but when you print it, it looks blurred. My understanding is, this occurs because you are using bigger dots (pixels) to fill the same amount of space.
Most printers print at 300dpi which is why if you want to print something, it should not be reduced more than 300dpi.
I guess screens use fewer dpi to full the screen thus 96 is still okay.

I am not sure if all this is correct, maybe chuck or fairnooks can comment.
fairnooks's Avatar
Account Disabled with 5,251 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Experience: Advanced
09-Apr-2008, 04:47 PM #10
I wouldn't mess around with the dpi settings in this instance. I believe it was for a mass email, not printing, and not all programs have the option to lock print dimensions when resizing (changing dpi), and if they do the image still has to be rendered just like it has to be for straight compression in order to hold the dimension the same (normal dpi change always changes dimensions relative to viewing or printing).

Last edited by fairnooks; 09-Apr-2008 at 06:08 PM..
PopPicker's Avatar
PopPicker PopPicker is offline PopPicker has a Profile Picture
Senior Member with 637 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Downunder
Experience: She said I was good
09-Apr-2008, 07:07 PM #11
A 1.75 mb jpg is an awfully large file when opened at 72 dpi. I'm sure reducing the pixel size will not compromise quality.

Perhaps more info on the actual size (pixels not kb) required would help. For email advertising an image size of 600x800 is AMPLE if not too big!

PP
cvandy's Avatar
cvandy cvandy is offline
Computer Specs
Junior Member with 15 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Experience: Intermediate
10-Apr-2008, 11:16 AM #12
Thanks
Thanks for all of the responses. I plan to try both changing the dpi and the compression. I cannot get to the websites to download the software right now because our network is blocking them. I will have to download the irfan view and fast stone when I get home.
cvandy's Avatar
cvandy cvandy is offline
Computer Specs
Junior Member with 15 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Experience: Intermediate
10-Apr-2008, 11:18 AM #13
also the picture is 792x756
fairnooks's Avatar
Account Disabled with 5,251 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Experience: Advanced
10-Apr-2008, 01:44 PM #14
I was about to say you guys were probably right unless it was a long ad image superimposed or integrated with a tall building or something of the kind. Cvandy never mentioned having to scroll the image though and if the text (or whatever it is that needs to be readable) couldn't be any smaller, and assuming 100% viewing size, I had the wild thought that the filesize reported may be that of the bitmap image in memory and not the actual .jpg filesize.

So almost certainly you are closer to the 200 Kb filesize than you think cvandy. You should still get a very reasonably good quality image with compression if its a high qualtiy .jpg to begin with. Good luck.
lister's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,993 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Belfast, UK
10-Apr-2008, 08:35 PM #15
DPI is metadata in the image that tells the printer how many pixels to print in an inch, adjusting it will not alter the image at all, neither will it make the file size smaller.

To keep the pixel dimensions the same and make the file size smaller you will have to increase the amount of compression in the jpeg save dialogue.
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


(clock)
THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem? We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.

Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑