Best way to shrink 800MBs into 700MBs?

Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
4,741
Location
SE Florida
I've managed to pare down through the culling process & conversion, 6 gigs of raw D2X shots from the Polish Folk Dance performance, into 800 MBs of full sized jpgs, saving them at "Good" quality. I did this in a batch process in NC4. I don't think I can delete any more shots, but still need to get them to fit onto a 700 MB CD. Do I start over again, but this time instruct the batch to make them 75% of their original size to best maintain quality, or shrink the already converted JPGs? What would you do?
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
4,741
Location
SE Florida
Not everyone has a DVD player

Granted many ppl do, not everyone has one, and since these copies are for the Polish Dancers to take home, I wanted to make sure everyone could play/edit/print them on their computers. Guess I could ask them what they would prefer, CD or DVD?
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
2,288
Location
Wasilla, Alaska
Whatever method you choose to make them smaller (Image size or jpeg quality) do not use the already reduced files. If you reduce a file and then do it again the results are very noticably poor. If you need to be smaller start back with the full size file and go from there. Good luck.
 
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
928
Location
New Jersey
Steve S said:
I've managed to pare down through the culling process & conversion, 6 gigs of raw D2X shots from the Polish Folk Dance performance, into 800 MBs of full sized jpgs, saving them at "Good" quality. I did this in a batch process in NC4. I don't think I can delete any more shots, but still need to get them to fit onto a 700 MB CD. Do I start over again, but this time instruct the batch to make them 75% of their original size to best maintain quality, or shrink the already converted JPGs? What would you do?
I love NC4, but it has a poor Jpeg compression to quality algorithm compared to Photoshop. Do your thing in NC4, but do the final jpegs in Photoshop. From my experience, Photoshop's resulting files were smaller and higher quality.

The drawback here is now you will have probably have to output them to TIFFs first. You could go 8 bit TIFF ~35 megs for a D2X or 16 bit TIFF ~ 70 megs for a D2X. Ah... the only drawback to the mighty D2X. :)
 
K

Ken-L

Guest
How about Irfanview, using it's Batch function?

How well does it do in keeping the quality?

When I use it to resize for postings on the web, I almost always have to re-sharpen the image.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom