and keep the "best friends" busy..



Hi!

Sunday morning. The zoo of Bale (Switzerland.Basel) is opening at 8:00.
weather good, accus charged, Weather a beauty.let's go.

Some hours later, back at home, afther transfering all pictures from the mobile storage device,
usualy 2 steps are required.

- Backup to an other pc over net, 1:1 copy to CD or DVD.
- Image optimization and reducing image file size

The image size, depending of the subject, can be reduced between 30% and 70%, more or less
(A bird in the sky uses mutch less "informations" as a duck on a complex backgroud with trees and water)


I never count the amount of pictures I take.

Walking around the zoo only 4 things belongs: the animal(s), the respect of the animal, the canon 10d and myself.

Most of the time listening to music, waiting for a good shot, the ipac 3850 spends about 8 H mp3.


Came back with 859 Pictures, total file size 2.2 Gigabytes. =1/2 DVD)

Due I want to leave as most as possible of the pictures on the Harddisk(s),
with a shareware tool (working over2 year now) in the batch mode, I let reduce the PCs the image size
and a litte bit of optimisations. Per Image, about 3-5 secconds are used. (get over shared network drive,

processing, rewrite over share networks drive)




Putting just one PC, even a fast one, takes hours with this amount
I didn't stop boinc, just started the optimizer and put, this was new, 8 PCs to "crunch the pictures"
Not counted the time exactely, but afther having a late lunch, the work was done.

afther reducing/opt. Pictures, total file size 1.05 Gigabytes. =1/4 DVD)

It counts!

Sometimes I'm running, with an other Tools, also in batch mode, additional resizing tasks. this also can be done

"distributed", but this take more works to do, so also a couple of CPUs can be putted on


For publishing here, I "more" reduced filesize by cutting down the amount of pixel and reducing colors.

Sorry, I'm not sorry for my bad english, I can't do it better, so can't be sorry. ;-)

kind regards

ric
above images:
first 768 x 512 32k
2nd 1024 x 768 58 k
Is the a big visual-able diference (without zooming!) ?

Sorry for the *huge* images




original image from 10d , 2'400 kbytes

Wonderful job Ric, I was quite impressed at how small you managed to compress the photos. I would have expected a photo with that much detail in the background to be about twice the size it is in order to retain the clarity you have.

Very good photograph too, by the way.