![]() |
Using compression to reduce file size
On my worksheet I'm using around 30 jpeg images that need cropping and
reducing down to around to 5% of original size. I'm compressing the images to minimise file size. Will the order of compressing and reducing matter? Should I crop, compress then reduce or crop reduce then compress, or will it not make any difference to the printed worksheet. I can't see any difference, but that doesn't mean the order of processes doesn't matter. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
jpeg files are compressed already.
re-generating a lower level jpeg file will lose quality. The best bet is to crop, reduce in size - then if still needed re-generate test the resulting image to ensure you can still see what you want. Steve On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:58:47 +0100, Ken Johnson wrote: On my worksheet I'm using around 30 jpeg images that need cropping and reducing down to around to 5% of original size. I'm compressing the images to minimise file size. Will the order of compressing and reducing matter? Should I crop, compress then reduce or crop reduce then compress, or will it not make any difference to the printed worksheet. I can't see any difference, but that doesn't mean the order of processes doesn't matter. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
Thanks Steve. Recompressing of just one image changes the file size from 380 KB to 19 KB with little drop in quality so I guess I leave the compression till last and do all the reduced images in one go. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
You have a jpeg file of 380kb and compress it (with zip) and get 19kb
Very suprised ? Steve On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:34:31 +0100, Ken Johnson wrote: Thanks Steve. Recompressing of just one image changes the file size from 380 KB to 19 KB with little drop in quality so I guess I leave the compression till last and do all the reduced images in one go. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
SteveW wrote: You have a jpeg file of 380kb and compress it (with zip) and get 19kb Very suprised ? Hi Steve, I compress using the compression tool on the Picture toolbar that is part of Excel 2003. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
Joe,
Some thoughts: If you've cropped the images with the picture toolbar, it retains the entire image unless you also use the "Compress" tool with the "delete cropped parts" in the Format - Picture dialog. As for the workbook size, Excel seems to store the compressed image in the workbook file, unlike with sheet backgrounds, where it stores the uncompressed image. The compress tool in the Format - Picture dialog reduces the file size considerably, and blurs the picture slightly. Oddly, it doesn't seem to add compression artifacts as happens when the jpeg compression is increased. Perhaps that's because it's been first blurred. If you're making the images small, that may be suitable for your application. If not, then you might get better results with an image editor, where you can do things like save it with increasing compression, finding the best compromise. -- Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ken Johnson" wrote in message oups.com... On my worksheet I'm using around 30 jpeg images that need cropping and reducing down to around to 5% of original size. I'm compressing the images to minimise file size. Will the order of compressing and reducing matter? Should I crop, compress then reduce or crop reduce then compress, or will it not make any difference to the printed worksheet. I can't see any difference, but that doesn't mean the order of processes doesn't matter. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
I haven't got that yet :)
Still suprised. Either your originals arn't jpeg's but are bmp's or Excel is compressing them using a very low jpeg calculation level Anyway... Steve On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:25:29 +0100, Ken Johnson wrote: SteveW wrote: You have a jpeg file of 380kb and compress it (with zip) and get 19kb Very suprised ? Hi Steve, I compress using the compression tool on the Picture toolbar that is part of Excel 2003. Ken Johnson |
Using compression to reduce file size
Earl Kiosterud wrote:
Joe, Some thoughts: If you've cropped the images with the picture toolbar, it retains the entire image unless you also use the "Compress" tool with the "delete cropped parts" in the Format - Picture dialog. As for the workbook size, Excel seems to store the compressed image in the workbook file, unlike with sheet backgrounds, where it stores the uncompressed image. The compress tool in the Format - Picture dialog reduces the file size considerably, and blurs the picture slightly. Oddly, it doesn't seem to add compression artifacts as happens when the jpeg compression is increased. Perhaps that's because it's been first blurred. If you're making the images small, that may be suitable for your application. If not, then you might get better results with an image editor, where you can do things like save it with increasing compression, finding the best compromise. -- Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Earl, The resulting quality does suit my application, and the file size has been reduced to around 700 KB from 7 MB. It will ultimately be printed on a b/w laser, which seems to produce slightly clearer results (less blurred) than my home inkjet. I'll see what can be achieved using photoshop. If it gives a better result then I may as well use it. Ken Johnson |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ExcelBanter.com