- I've seen this before if the 'restorer' use a better program than the 'uploader' originally had. It has happened to me too when I have helped some user who didn't have access to Photoshop and Lightroom. Small changes will increase the file in those programs. I don't think that small difference in file size is a big issue here since we are actually encouraged to upload as big files as possible.--Cart (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the restorer started from the source material, I would be fine, but I strongly suspect (s)he started from the the JPEG. And the changes are mainly details removal, so should reduce the amount of information the file carries, and hence its size. Yes it doesn't really matter here, and it would be even more stupid to add a new version on top since MediaWiki keeps all versions: the space is lost already. But maybe some people read me and agree with me that our planet has limited ressources ;) - Benh (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- I did a little experiment where I downloaded the original file and did only a mild NR on it in Photoshop, no dust spot removal, and just by doing that and save, the file jumped from 9.25 MB to 12.7 MB. Anyone can test this. --Cart (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably used different settings and lesser compression that's all ;) but the details was lost by the first compression so this would be useless outside an experiment. - Benh (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite understand what you mean. I didn't use any of Ivar's files, but went back in history to the original file, same as Ivar did unless Ivar had access to the original raw file. I assume you know that you can access the first (or any older) version of the file by clicking on the small thumbnail in the file's history. I think it also has to do with that when you do NR, you create better gradients between pixel areas. These areas that before the NR had more pixels of the same color, become several different colors and this will increase the file size. --Cart (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The filesize is partly determined by the settings on the software you use. See this analysis for Lightroom/Photoshop. I reckoned that Lightroom setting 90 (out of 100) and Photoshop 11 (out of 12) offered the best trade-off of file reduction vs retaining detail. I couldn't easily distinguish using the max setting from the "one stop down" setting but going another stop down did cause a small visible change at 100% pixel peeping. However, even then the change was "the noise shifted" rather than anything objectionable. I appreciate you can't get back what you lost, but you can stop it getting worse. This is particularly true if you have cropped the top or left, since those JPG 8x8 squares no longer line up.
- This affects just storage size on Wikimedia's servers, and the odd few of us who ever look at the full size version. When someone looks at an image on Wikipedia or a reduced size version on Commons, the MediaWiki thumbnailer will have aggressively compressed that before sending it out. Benh, have a look at Special:NewFiles and you'll soon realised that a few extra MB in a high quality photo such as this is really not WikiMedia's problem. Plus, on the global scheme of things, a few milliseconds of Netflix blows this out the water, not to mention the x-rated portion of the internet. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's more serious a topic than I first thought. Cart, Charlesjsharp filesizes are determined by many things and mainly the information the files contains and the compression algorithm. Higher noise photo will yield larger size because of higher frequency information which are harder to compress. So usually, an NRed file will be smaller at equal compression algorithm. Keep in mind Jpeg is a lossy algorithm too, so it's a bit of vanity to think that by saving with a bigger size from a small size Jpeg, you'll get better results. It's as Colin said: at most, you'll stop making it worse. Charles, saying that topaze increases size whether you sharpen or NR misses a chunk of the story. You've got to tell on top how the original files were compressed and how topaze saves them too for a proper comparison. Colin, wrt size and space on Wikimedia servers, I can tell size doesn't seem to be a Wikimedia problem. I was just thinking about general use of ressource. Nothing is free, so let's use only what's necessary. That was my philosophy moment only. - Benh (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I think that worrying about trying to make the file size smaller, in order to save a few MB on Wikimedia servers, is wasting another precious resource: one's life. And think of the likely other problem this worry may lead to: that someone uses too high a compression in order to save space, and ends up introducing JPG artefacts. Better to err on the side of too little compression. In the time it takes you to read this sentence, Netflix has streamed terrabytes of data across the internet. So, philosophically, as they say in the US, "don't sweat the small stuff". -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Benh Files saved directly from RAW into Photoshop CS6 at maximum size jpg then put through by Topaz denoise AI on auto setting (includes sharpening) always increase in file size. Without exception. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I prefer to export RAW straight to JPG from Lightroom for this reason, but if I ever need to edit it in Photoshop I always save as 8-bit TIFF (compressed LZW) for small edits, and 16-bit TIFF (compressed ZIP) for major edits (for future proofing, because if I ever need a 16-bit version I don't want to redo all my local changes). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin I totally agree :) my example is a bit extreme. But think of it that way: millions of cigarette butts on the streets, so how is one more going to make it worse? I'd still avoid throwing them anywhere (OK I don't smoke so it helps) :D Sorry for the digression. - Benh (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Info created & uploaded by Nick Archibald - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment The sky to the left of the hut looking so different to the right is offputting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
