Size of JPEGs

Here everybody can post his problems with PhotoLine
User avatar
greenmorpher
Mitglied
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue 29 May 2007 14:42
Location: Rabaul, Papua New Guinea

Size of JPEGs

Post by greenmorpher » Tue 25 Sep 2007 00:07

Hiya Gerhard

When saving something, there is the button to click for 'image size' in the dialog.

This is an excellent facility.

Two points:

1) Why have a button? Why not just make this readout automatic?

2) What about putting the readout in KB and MB so we don't have to count off the figures in the readout to work out what the size is from a practical users' point of view? A computer can make that conversion a lot faster and more reliably than I can! :)

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard, Business Writer & Publisher

"Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes" -- Revealed! The secrets of how you can use type and layout to turbocharge your messages in print. See the book at http://www.worsleypress.com

:P

User avatar
Gerhard Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3839
Joined: Mon 18 Nov 2002 15:30
Location: Bad Gögging

Re: Size of JPEGs

Post by Gerhard Huber » Tue 25 Sep 2007 12:14

greenmorpher wrote:When saving something, there is the button to click for 'image size' in the dialog.
This is an excellent facility.
1) Why have a button? Why not just make this readout automatic?
Calculating the file size can be pretty time consuming. So I think this is the better way. If you want to see the size all the time, activate the Preview.
greenmorpher wrote:2) What about putting the readout in KB and MB so we don't have to count off the figures in the readout to work out what the size is from a practical users' point of view? A computer can make that conversion a lot faster and more reliably than I can! :)
We will change this.

Gerhard

User avatar
greenmorpher
Mitglied
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue 29 May 2007 14:42
Location: Rabaul, Papua New Guinea

Post by greenmorpher » Tue 25 Sep 2007 14:37

Thanks, Gerhard, that's great.

I ran into another one today -- NeoOffice (Open Office for Mac for those who don't know) -- offered me a download of 159637686 bytes! (That's not the actual figure, but it was like that.) I had just pressed the download button when I realised that it was actually 159 MB and I was doing it for two small bug fixes! Not! Stopped it forthwith. Bytes are so far from any reasonable user starting point today. 8-)

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard, Business Writer & Publisher

"Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes" -- Revealed! The secrets of how you can use type and layout to turbocharge your messages in print. See the book at http://www.worsleypress.com

MVGL
Mitglied
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2006 14:13
Location: Berlin

Numbers

Post by MVGL » Tue 02 Oct 2007 07:39

I always have some difficulties with such indications of file sizes.
First, compare these informations:

17 MB
120 GB
1270 KB

Which one of these is the largest number?

Secondly if a number ends with "MB" for example, you will never know if this means "Million Bytes" (1.000.000) or "Mega Bytes" (1.048.576), which will be important if you have to fill the remaining space on your CD.
I think a better way to indicate filesize numbers is to separate the thousands positions:

159.637.686

Regards, Martin.

User avatar
greenmorpher
Mitglied
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue 29 May 2007 14:42
Location: Rabaul, Papua New Guinea

Post by greenmorpher » Tue 02 Oct 2007 14:42

Hello Martin

The answer to your question is obvious at a glance -- but thanks to the units, I can read and compared them at a glance -- all three at once. There is no co0nfusiong, of course, because everyone knows what KB, MB, GB and TB represent -- and if you are fighting to get the last 3 bytes on to a CD, then I have to say "Enjoy" but I have better things to do.

If you think writing out the bytes all the time will make things better, then I can only say you are different from the vast majority of people get confused with big numbers. Quite apart from the plethora of digits, which don't actually add anything to what they know and gets in the way of their processing the information, there are the differences in notation to add to the confusion.

You write: 159.637.686

I presume that is a whole number, i.e. no decimal places. If there were decimal places, I think you would add a comma to denote that all following numbers were decimals.

But looking at your number immediately confuses me because our way of writing such a number would be 159,637,686 and if there were decimal places we would add a "." to denote that.

Others are using spaces, so they would write 159 637 686. I'm not sure whether they then use a comma or a full point to indicate decimals. I find this way of writing large numbers very confusing -- is there supposed to be a space there or is it a typo?

By the way, do you do all your shopping and other financial transactions in cents only (or whatever is the smallest denomination in your currency)?

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard, Business Writer & Publisher

"Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes" -- Revealed! The secrets of how you can use type and layout to turbocharge your messages in print. See the book at http://www.worsleypress.com

User avatar
Hoogo
Betatester
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2005 13:35
Location: Mülheim/Ruhr

Post by Hoogo » Tue 02 Oct 2007 16:17

I'd prefer Bytes until 100 Kilobytes, after that Kibi-Bytes or Mebi-Bytes. It's silly, but I'm addicted to the binary system ;)