Picture Size and number of pictures

[BigSpud]

Abby or Vid Dude or some other technical wizard,

As I look at the Dressing Room section, there don't seem to be enough pictures.

I finally figured it out today. Mallory's DR was 11Mb for 39 pictures, Sian & Jocelyn was 30Mb for 196 pictures. That's 3x in size and 5x in pictures.

I looked at several other DR sets and they seem to follow a similar pattern. How come the difference. I understand some variation due to content differences and compression , but that seems more than that.

Thanks, BigSpud

[artlover]

Maybe it's because there's less nudity in the Dressing Room sets. :D

[arsby]

Hi, Spud.

I can't speak to the compression issue and the size of the images.

I can speak to why there are so few images.

Dressing room sets can be very very erotic and hot, but, face it, there's almost by definition not much in the way of content.
The model grabs and puts on her knickers, grabs and puts on her bra, then her jeans or skirt, then her top. The fun and eroticism isn't in the content, it's in the intimacy. If you take a look at some DR sets, the only way I could add more images would be to add more images between what's already there -- instead of 8 images of her putting on her jeans I could put in 16, but honestly, I don't think that would add much to the set. Nor would you want to see the 15 images of her tying the string on her pants.

I hope that answered your question.

[BigSpud]

Hi Arsby,

I am sorry I didn't make myself a bit clearer. I was not complaining about the number of pictures in the set. I was really complaining that the pictures that were there took up so much more hard disk space compared to the regular shoots. I just said it backwards. Starting from the file size, I expected more pictures. Content-wise (such a word?) I agree, there ain't much more to show.

Spuddie

[Luxman]

The DR pictures are simply less compressed.
While the main pictures are compressed 1:30 - 1:32, the DR pictures are compressed 1:18.
The question why, should be asked to the person who did the conversion.

Lxm

[BigSpud]

The DR pictures are simply less compressed.
While the main pictures are compressed 1:30 - 1:32, the DR pictures are compressed 1:18.
The question why, should be asked to the person who did the conversion.

LxmAnd you know this how? :)

[Luxman]

And you know this how? :)
By having a look at the info of my GraphicConverter software.

Lxm

[Vid Dude]

Compression is less on an image that has more finer detail. In order to retain all the busy-ness of Sian and Jocelyn's set, found in the foliage in the background, Photoshop compresses it less so as not to turn such detail into a chunky blur. In the Dressing Room sets, especially the indoor ones, the lighting is normally lower contrast and they have generally been indoors, and so the image has large areas of smooth gradients of colour, allowing for higher compression.

That is: Instead of it looking at each individual pixel and saying 'green, dark green, light green, green, dark green' it can now look at whole 8x8 blocks of pixels and say 'this block is all pale white, then another block of pale white, then a slightly paler white' etc.

That, in a very crude way, is how compression works. Here endeth the lesson.

[BigSpud]

Hi Vid Dude,

What has me puzzled is that the effect is exactly the opposite from what you describe. Your description of compression is a good one. Based on indoors and higher compression I would expect 39 images to take less than 39/196 of the 29Mb that the SianJocelyn shoot takes. But it takes quite a bit more. That is the indoor shots didn't compress (or weren't compressed) very much (Lux 18:1) compared to the outdoor shoot.

When I edit a JPG I get a chance to specify the degree of compression I want (Hi to LO) . Hi = less detail.

I suspect that the DR images are not treated in exactly the same manner as the regular shoots and therefore taking up more space than they need to.

My .02

Also, look at the stats for 2 indoor shots of Mallory as shown in Luxman's image program. I would expect compression to be fairly equal as both pictures have broad areas of the same color and not a huge amount of detail.

[alleyes1]

Hi BigSpud,
First, I'm planning to make a suitable congrats on you're promotion to "Long Standing Veteran" when I compose an appropriate post. But anyway, Congratulations, in advance !! :cool:

My puzzle in this thread is that as long as you've been a member here, you certainly know that the pictures that Abby takes are big and the videos here are substantial in size. (For a person like me who "only" has a 60gb hard drive!:p

Anyway, in all honesty, in reference to these dressing room pics, in practical terms, what difference does it make??

Alleyes

[BigSpud]

Hi AllEyes,

Thanks and I look forward to your post in the Special Post thread.

Yes, I know they are big and I LOVE IT! It has just been something that has been nagging at the back of my mind. For 11MB I expected more images based on other shoots OR I expected to see larger images than usual.

I use 1600x1200 screen resolution and the pics fit very nicely on the entire screen.

I finally decided to find out why the discrepancy. Hence this thread.

Besides, how else was I going to get to 1,000?:)

;)

[arsby]

Hey Spud, you keep posting like you've been today and you'll be at 2000 in no time flat! :)

[BigSpud]

Hey Spud, you keep posting like you've been today and you'll be at 2000 in no time flat! :)Yes, but why are we whispering?

[arsby]

I'm not whispering, I'm talking in a really high voice that sounds like being on helium. Anyhoo, you started it.

[BigSpud]

I'm not whispering, I'm talking in a really high voice that sounds like being on helium. Anyhoo, you started it.Did not!

This page just showed you with 2030 posts and me with 1015. Bet something like that won't happen again for a long time.

[Luxman]

What has me puzzled is that the effect is exactly the opposite from what you describe. Your description of compression is a good one. Based on indoors and higher compression I would expect 39 images to take less than 39/196 of the 29Mb that the SianJocelyn shoot takes. But it takes quite a bit more. That is the indoor shots didn't compress (or weren't compressed) very much (Lux 18:1) compared to the outdoor shoot.
Vid Dude's explanation is absolutely correct.

What we should not forget is that the dressing room pictures are normally shot without artificial light or flash.
This automatically generates more "noise”, also named grain, and noise is a natural ennemy of compression.
There is no more a big uniform area that is easy to compress, but tons of different pixels that can't be compressed very well.

Lxm

[BigSpud]

...This automatically generates more "noise”, also named grain, and noise is a natural ennemy of compression....Yes, I can see that (http://sevenseaspublishing.com/images/illustrations/book1chapter9_new.jpg) now.

[Vid Dude]

Aha! Good call. I was on the right track, but in inverse. Thanks for correcting me. I should stop trying to think when I first get out of bed.

[artlover]

Know whatcha mean, Vid Dude. Here are my morning thoughts: Where is my cat? Where is his food bowl? Where's the kitchen? Where's the toilet?

On really groggy days, it's Now that I'm in the bathroom, what do I do next? :D:D

[BigSpud]

As much as I hate to bring this up again (ducks), I don't understand the difference in size between the pictures in a shoot and the pictures in the dressing room section.

Take Jocelyn and Sian. The regular shoot (outdoors with lots of light and complexity of content) has 196 pictures in 29.8Mb. The dressing room shots (outdoors in pretty much the same location as the shoot) has 26 pictures in 12.9MB. These numbers don't balance. There must be something very different in the processing of the dressing room pictures compared to the processing of the shoot.

The individual pictures range from 305KB to 610KB in the DR and the largest in the regular shoot set is 236KB (picture 001).

I understand compression (pic 153 of 2 darling boobs is 58KB) where much of the same color is available for compression. What I don't see is why the smallest DR shot is larger than the largest regular shoot and all the images have exactly the same number of pixels (1472x981). Surely it can't all be due to variations in compression, unless different parameters (compression rules) are applied. If that is the case, I am asking why the difference.

BigSpud (in member mode) :)

:confused:

[Vid Dude]

It's still the same answer. In the regular Sian and Jocelyn set, the majority of the image is large areas of smooth fleshtones, and out-of-focus backgrounds. Sharpness of small detail is low. This makes compression much easier.

The Dressing Room set is entirely made up of wide shots in sharp clarity showing lots of foliage and grass and water in fine detail. Compression of an image like that and maintaining the clarity requires a larger filesize.

[BigSpud]

this (http://www.abbywinters.com/main.php?page=image&index=20&shoot=1572) says it all

[timbit]

I think the simple and obvious answer to the compression enigma is that the DR sets are not just images but highly secret, coded messages disguised as innocent nudie pics.
The DR section is a front for an international secret society planning on taking over the world (see The DaVinci Code for further info).

Timbit ;)

[artlover]

Don't forget the Trilateral Commission :)

[alleyes1]

Nor the Bildeburgers !!!!! :p:p

Alleyes