JPEG size after BQM

[frederic chaume]

Hi

got it , in some of my workflows the JPEG Quality was set to 90% by 
mistake instead of 100%,  that explain the difference

sorry for disturbance

frederic



Le 12/05/2024 à 10:36, Maik Qualmann a écrit :
> I can't reproduce it here. Starting from an image of around 11 MB, with BQM
> JPEG 100% and 4:4:4 I get a file size of around 18 MB.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Sonntag, 12. Mai 2024, 10:09:59 MESZ schrieb frederic chaume:
>> ok, but here the differene is huge :  70% smaller (12Mb vs 4Mb).
>> I checked the "saving images" parameters from the BQM : "JPG Quality" is
>> set to 100% and "chroma.. " set to 4.4.4 (best quality)
>>
>> is there other settings that could explain this difference ?
>> frederic
>>
>> Le 12/05/2024 à 08:57, Remco Viëtor a écrit :
>>> On dimanche 12 mai 2024 08:46:24 CEST frederic chaume wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I created a workflow in BQM just to add a watermark (using a png
>>>> filewith and opacity of 75%) .
>>>> Then I add a JPEG and I got the expected result but I realized that the
>>>> size of the orginal JPEG was ~12Mb and the generated file is only ~4Mb .
>>>> I checked that the resolution remains the same , so I'm wondering is
>>>> there should be some comperssion during the BQM execution. Did I miss
>>>> something?
>>>> For information, I did  the same in another software (DXO) and the
>>>> generated file has the same size than the original one
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your feedback
>>>>
>>>> Frederic
>>> Adding a watermark to a .jpg means re-encoding the data, so yes, file size
>>> can change depending on quality settings.
>
>
>