I need to take a bunch of JPEGS and make them all 6 MB. What is the best FREE option that will take the lowest amount of resources on my PC?
-
-
irfanview -
Ty hey have to be exactly 6mb each? Or you need to compress a bunch of them into a 6mb batch?Comment
-
that doesnt seem to make sense at allComment
-
-
You become shit, not pictures.
Any reduced JPEG need increase sharpness.Comment
-
You guys are confusing me. I thought this would be easy to explain.
I have 1 million JPEGS in a folder that at 1 million MBS each.
I need to be able to re size them to 5.99 MB each.
The end result will be 1 million JPEGS in a folder all 5.99 MB each.Comment
-
Comment
-
Your pics are are 1 million mbs each? Wtf is the resolution? Did you take these pics with the hubble?Comment
-
Harmon's partner is about the size of the Hubble.Comment
-
This still doesn't make sense. The JPEG images I shoot in my DSLR camera at the highest resolution settings and a pixel dimension size of 5616 x 3744 are only about 5.0-6.0 MB each straight out of the camera.
How huge are these images that you are working with? And why would you want to re-size them to such a still gigantic file size, especially if these are intended to be displayed to the end users that way?Comment
-
Now I am even more confused... you have JPEGs that are one million megabytes each?
That is huge for a single JPG.
But, the other issue is this:
JPEG is a file format AND a compression algorithm. It was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG). Its done with math.... and by comparing pixels that are next to each other.
There is no way to predict exactly how much compression it would take to produce a file that is exactly 5.99mb on size (hard drive space).
Example - a photo that is 2000 pixels wide by 2000 pixels high of a pure white background and a chair in the middle will compress to a smaller file (disk space / download size) then a 2000 x 2000 picture of a field of flowers.
Thats because JPEG will see all those pixels of white that exactly match each other and need to write that to the file just a few times.
(In code its like:
"Take pixel 000001 through pixel 199999 and make them all the color 255255255"
One line of code for 99,000 pixels (because they are all exactly the same shade of white and are next to each other).
In the photo of the field with flowers its more like:
Take pixel 100000 and make it the color 254251208
Take pixel 100001 and make it the color 254251196
So, basically 99,000 lines of code to describe 99,000 pixels.
Thats basic - but you can't predict an exact file size of one millions pictures because they all have millions of different pixels.Comment
-
I was giving an example since we have so many idiots on GFY.
The JPEGS are about to 8 - 12 MB each.Comment
-
-
What's the point of reducing their file size only marginally down to the still huge file size of 5.99 MB? Especially if they are full size from a digital camera and you are not going to re-size them down in pixel dimensions which is usually what is done to ready them for galleries for surfers.Comment
-
I really shouldn't keep responding to this and keep going deeper down the rabbit hole: But why, pray tell would you want to reduce the file sizes of a bunch of gigantic 8 MB-12 MB images to an arbitrary somewhat smaller file size like 5.99 MB?
You see, people often ask technical questions on forums or of other people without really explaining what their reasoning, their ultimate goal and intended practical purpose is. So they might get answer like for example- "use shareware program x" -that technically answers their question, and it leads them down a path of inefficiency or pointlessness of doing something backwards that no one else would really do.
People who do tech support or are experienced in certain fields experience this all the time so usually we make an assumption or ask for clarification before even answering a technical question, especially if it doesn't really make sense.
You see, it's quite possible for a third party to imagine that the answer to your *real* issue might not be to reduce the file sizes of these images at all but rather something else entirely that is in effect a better solution to the core issue which you haven't really explained yet.
Just saying.Comment
-
faststone.org
this works great as a batch resizer.Comment
-
I have a sinking suspicion that you're trying to reduce the file size of your photos using a shareware app locally on your hard drive to 5.99 MB to get around this artificial limitation, then upload them to a CMS which will then use an automated function to further reduce these images by file sizes and/or pixel dimensions possibly to multiple outputs resulting in a quality crushing two-step reduction process. But I guess it's not my place to be questioning your entire workflow based on assumptions. I just can't help it, lol.Comment
-
Your best bet then would be to write a PHP script that you run on a local machine (your computer) and:
-resize a picture to a given size
-check the size of the image
-if the image size isn't correct, auto tweak the parameters for resize
-if the image fits a given tolerance (within 50KB of 6MB), move to the next original image to resize.
If you download and install WAMP, this is something you can do.Comment
-
Comment
-
usually you can save them with lower quality in any program like photoshop...
i use fireworks for most of my work, you can creat a batch process for all pics to automate.
In any graphic software, make the jpeg quality 79 (medium quality), and save. Under 6 MB?
Then search on google for your software + 'batch process' to find out how to make this process automatic.Comment
-
the very first thing you should know is that the jpg's will NEVER all be the exact same file size AND if you have 1 million jpg's in a folder you're looking at a 2-3 week batch process to resize them especially if the images are larger than 6MB already.. and if you think you'll do that with out spending any processor resource you are completely off track...Comment
-
Comment
-
this idiot here has given you a solution that costs $15
http://www.smalleranimals.com/thumb.htm
sorry when you can't afford $15 though
Comment
-
I was doing the guy a favor by asking why he wanted to do what he wanted to do instead of just answering his technical question without regard to the ramifications. And I took some great pains to explain why technically minded people ask probing questions like that. If you're too ignorant to understand that it's not my problem.Comment
-
What are you planning to do with those 6MB images? upload them somewhere? but why? are you uploading them one at a time? or with some tool?
the whole thing makes no sense... why don't you just spell out what you are trying to do?
like: "I'm trying to upload my pic collection to facebook, they have 6MB upload limit, so that's why I need the pics resized"...Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip ManagerComment
-
-
arles image webpage creator - i'm using it for making thumbs and resizing images since 2003, beats photoshop - output image have better quality with lesser weight than same image resized on photoshop.
however you can setup there max height and width of image and jpeg's quality but you can't tell the program to make all photos be 6mb. but if you would test on few photos jpeg's quality for example 75% and resize images a bit you could easy define what properties you need to setup arles to have 6mb. it's one button program but resizing that many images would take some time (for my dual core 5y old processor i'm resizing 30 photos around 3seconds)
good luck.
ed.: it's free for 30days no limit of use.Pure Japan japanese babes blogComment
-
Doesn't matter why. I just need to be able to batch process files to a lower MB. I appreciate your help Jim, but I'm not looking for professional guidance. Just a quickly and ugly solution. Free of course bc I'm poor.Comment
-
Still LQQKing...Comment
-
man, if you would shell out 15 bucks you would be already done with this shitComment
Comment