TOPIC: Photo resolution in finished report

Here's the idea.  Give inspectors three options for photo resolution within their finished reports. For example, an average report with 60 photos could have three photo size options:

1. Photos at lowest resolution, end report size = 2.5Mb    (this would be the current setting)
2. Photos at medium resolution, end report size = 4.0Mb
3. Photos at highest resolution, end report size = 5.5Mb

Currently, HIP lowers both the size and, from what I can tell, the resolution of the photos as well.  The photos all seem to end up around 40Kb and 260x350, but if you just shrink an original to the same 260x350, the clarity is a little better and the size is around 60-70Kb.  The question is, can the dimensions remain the same, but the clarity be increased so the report photos are not as pixelated?

Wow, 2.5 megs? The average report is about 1.5 megs, that's with the average of 40 pictures. File size is 10k-20k. I think you're copying and pasting the image from the PDF to a program like Photoshop which is why you see 40k. Look in HIP's Data/Temp/(most recent folder) for the actual images of the open inspection and you'll see what I mean.

HIP definitely reduces the dimensions (not to would be a waste of file space) and does decrease the quality as well to keep the reports small and quality high.

The reports when viewed at 100% to around 150% zoom should have little pixelation. If you have a huge monitor and you're zoomed in at around 200% to 250% you'll see some. This is exactly what happens on my 30" monitor (245% pdf zoom by default). If the reports printed you'd have to look extremely hard to see any quality difference, same goes for 100 to 150% zoom. Basically it's being saved at 350 wide but viewed as around 700 wide.

Photo 1 attached is a photo taken with a 5 megapixel camera set to shoot at medium, which is about 3 megapixels (enough for a quality 20"x30" poster). The original is 1600x1200 at 180dpi, file size is 570k.

The algorithm I use in HIP (continuously evolving over the years) for compression to maximize quality/minimize size keeps about 80% of the quality. HIP reduces all photos (except the cover) to 350 wide, the height stays the same proportion which here is 262 (and should be for most cameras). Resolution is set to 72dpi which is the industry standard. The file size is 16k. See photo 1a for the current HIP reduced image.

Here is the same image reduced in Photoshop to 80% quality. You'll notice it looks a little better at 200% view than my algorithm but is 36k, twice the size. Photoshop considers 80% quality to be "Very High" quality. Definitely far from the lowest setting you marked.

Here is the same image reduced in HIP at 100% quality (basically just resize, not adjust quality too much, all JPEG saves are lossy to some degree though). Note that the file size is now 71k (4 times the original).

Looks at these and tell me if you can see the difference. I can definitely add in the option to change the quality, but I at least don't see the difference, which is the point/problem.

Just saw your other post. That post was comparing apples and oranges. You're looking at one huge image and one small, the dimensions of the two photos are completely different. One is big enough to print a several foot poster. The other is big enough to fit 6 to 8 on a page. The quality of these two, the resolution, is very similar. You are just looking at one smaller than the other. The reason Bob was mentioning zoom was just that it would allow you to zoom 'in' on the issue a bit more (though you can move your camera in more too).

Regarding your iPhone. Either it just takes better pictures than my Evo or my hand is just way too shaky (more likely). Your example photos looked great.

Note what I said before about the HIP image file size. The 40k you saw from 'copying' out of the PDF was what your photo program made from the image. The original, in the Data\Temp folder is around 16k.

Dom, thank you SO much for the info. I'm going to digest it and get back to you.  You're right, I was cutting and pasting from the pdf, but it's really the quality or clarity in the actual pdf that I'm wondering about improving.  I'll get back after read all this.

I have only had three reports which were under 2Mb.  And I'm only averaging about 40 photos.  Is it the text which is making mine larger?

No problem. There's a lot of info here. First, go to your PDF viewer and set it to 100% zoom and look at the pics. Then come back here on the board and you'll notice the pics look the same size. Now how the CTRL button on your keyboard and push the + key a lot which zooms the web page in. Get it about the same size you see in the PDF and you'll see what I mean. What screen size do you have?

I'd have to see the PDF to tell you why it's going over 2 megs. It's probably a combination of quite a few things.

Great discussion. More coming