JPEG Mini Pro

UaeExile

UaeExile

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,469
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently need to send 3GB of images and I stumbled across this. Does anyone use it? Or have experience of similar?

80% reduction in file size with ZERO loss in quality, surely this can't be right and if it is, why isn't everyone using it! :eek:
 
I had never heard of it, but it certainly looks interesting. It was reviewed on Photography Life, a website I trust, and received 5 stars, so perhaps worth testing the free trial.
 
I thought jpg was already a compressed format?
Whenever I've emailed a batch of "zipped" jpegs, the file size reduction has been minimal.
I would have thought the only way to reduce the file size would have been to apply more compression, thus affecting Image Quality.

Sounds interesting enough to warrant a trial.
 
UaeExile said:
with ZERO loss in quality
Click to expand...
Reading their technology section that seems to be going a bit far. What they say is
that the original JPEG photo and the recompressed JPEGmini photo cannot be distinguished by average users when displayed at 100% zoom on a computer monitor
Click to expand...

They say they use an algorithm which "imitates the perceptual qualities of the human visual system" and applies compression that cannot be detected by the "average" viewer. I would guess this means things like reds and blues, where the eye is less sensitive are comressed more than greens for example. So there is no visible loss of quality but there is a reduction in the total amount of information in the image file. So it's probably fine most of the time for viewing on screen at 100% or less.
 
Brian G said:
I thought jpg was already a compressed format?
Whenever I've emailed a batch of "zipped" jpegs, the file size reduction has been minimal.
I would have thought the only way to reduce the file size would have been to apply more compression, thus affecting Image Quality.

Sounds interesting enough to warrant a trial.
Click to expand...

I've tried the trial and it works as it says - replaced my exported files and saved 1.2GB. the problem is I need to deliver 303 images and the trial is only for 200 :mad:
 
UaeExile said:
I've tried the trial and it works as it says - replaced my exported files and saved 1.2GB. the problem is I need to deliver 303 images and the trial is only for 200 :mad:
Click to expand...
Sign up for another free trial with a different email address?
 
MartinCornwall said:
Sign up for another free trial with a different email address?
Click to expand...
Balls to it. I read a review from Mark @Shotkit and jumped right in and bought the Pro version.

Internet speeds here aren't the same as back home and reducing this set from over 3GB to 1.2GB is massive when it comes to upload speeds for me and download speeds for a client.
 
Ah, been waiting to hear some proper 'real life' feedback on this jpeg mini thing...
So, verdict?
 
Didn't Google buy these folks?

Or maybe it was someone similar but I thought it was the reason Google now offered unlimited storage if you agree to have your photos compressed by them. I haven't done any in depth analysis but I am very impressed by the Google compression algorithm (or rather, the one they bought), can't see any noticeable loss in quality on their unlimited uploads.
 
sunnyside_up said:
Ah, been waiting to hear some proper 'real life' feedback on this jpeg mini thing...
So, verdict?
Click to expand...

Early days but it seems borderline black magic. The proof will be in the printing, but so far it's bloody brilliant. I'm using the standalone application and you just drag and drop and it replaces your original JPEG with the Mini version. Crazy fast as well.

@Shotkit did a great review which made my mind up.
 
juggler said:
So have you compared it to - say - setting quality at 75% in LR?
Click to expand...
Yup - file size comes out at roughly the same size but IQ is better. I would say that it's only marginally better, but if you're trying to retain as much clean detail as possible it's worth it.

The trial version can be used on 200 shots, so you can do your own comparison before making a decision.
 
Have you done a compare of the original and a compressed one as layers with the difference blend mode? Courious
 
UaeExile said:
80% reduction in file size with ZERO loss in quality, surely this can't be right and if it is, why isn't everyone using it! :eek:
Click to expand...

Because it's £100, I'm willing to bet if it was £20 they'd sell more than 5 times as many copies. If it was £10 there would be little reason for anyone not to buy it. But at £100 it costs more for what most people will view as a lightroom export preset as lightroom itself costs.
 
Last edited:
CraigDHD said:
Because it's £100, I'm willing to bet if it was £20 they'd sell more than 5 times as many copies. If it was £10 there would be little reason for anyone not to buy it. But at £100 it costs more for what most people will view as a lightroom export preset as lightroom itself costs.
Click to expand...

Yeah good point. I hadn't thought of it in sterling. Brexit eh.
 
CraigDHD said:
Because it's £100, I'm willing to bet if it was £20 they'd sell more than 5 times as many copies. If it was £10 there would be little reason for anyone not to buy it. But at £100 it costs more for what most people will view as a lightroom export preset as lightroom itself costs.
Click to expand...

They do seem to be paying for an awful lot of shiny FB advertising to justify the high cost.

A quick trawl has led me to a couple of freebies:
http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/
and for nerds only..
https://www.reddit.com/r/software/comments/1ut7ir/similar_functionality_to_jpegmini_but_freeware/
 
I've used JPG mini for awhile now with. No issues at all. Image quality is good with no loss in quality.

I'm surprised more people aren't using it. I have the JPEG Mini standard which works fine.
 
Looks potentially useful.

Out of curiosity what are you shooting that requires 300 10MB JPEGs? 300+ files sounds like an event - my high res delivery for that would likely be under 1GB in the first place (10mp JPEGs at 80% from LR - ie good enough to be printed to practically any size they like, generally come out at between 1 and 3 MB each).
 
I suspect the market for this application is quite small and restricted to a narrow subset of professional users, hence the high price. If it were £10 or £20 I still wouldn't buy it because I've no need to compress my images a great deal.
 
I have been doing this for years with a FREE program called Easy Thumbnails:

http://www.fookes.com/easy-thumbnails

I use it at 85% quality and no re-size and get a vast reduction in my JPEG sizes.

You can also work the changes in a lot of different ways, and it does batch processing.

I always use it to put my pics on here.

All at no cost!
 
I have been uising this for just over a year, saved 11.4 GB space on my main HDD & also with clients USB sizes now only 4GB.

Also uploading to website for proofing/digital download.
 
Can't you just use Drop box, doesn't that give you 3.5gb of free storage ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top