Simp Chat machi0910

her pics don't have as much junk metadata as you think, they're just insanely high resolution thus very massive.
they do have SOME junk metadata though, and running the 98MB pic from the firefly part 2 set through FileOptimizer, it's reduced to 82MB.
15%-20% reduction is definitely not nothing but still.
 
could you upload the reduced metadata EX62 from the firefly set so we can compare? i find it very hard to believe that we're getting such varied results with 2 different tools WITHOUT compression being involved, but i also never heard of that tool before so for all i know it is as miraculous as it sounds :peepoShrug:
here's my result
https://gofile.io/d/3jAXmv
 
Can you show me please? can you upload the before and after your metadata clean-up because I just debugged my script and after removing meta data like the origin, camera details, advance photos properties did not reduce image size at all
 
to clarify and be a bit of a nerd here, along with metadata cleaning, there is technically compression with FileOptimizer, but it's a lossless recompression of the pictures with more efficient algorithms that more often than not reduce the filesize significantly without altering the file itself or how it works, so no extra noise or quality loss, you can still zoom in all the way :PogTasty: although my example picture was not the best for this since the good bits are out of focus :KEKWlaugh:
as a sidenote to anyone reading, always a good idea to run your files through a similar software before posting, since in another model's thread we had someone get an actual cease and desist letter that might or might not have been avoided with such processes :PepeWhy: not saying it was BECAUSE of the metadata (not sure of the specifics and didn't check myself if they did clean the files before posting tbh), since there's a lot of factors that can give you away, but file metadata CAN definitely be one of them so it's always good practice to do so before posting.
now, not trying to be a fearmonger with this, because not all models (arguably NONE of them) are as litigious as haneame :OMEGALUL: but still, always keep yourself safe :pepoLove:
 
thanks, that's okay no need for more uploads, just wanted to compare a bit between both results of the same picture with each tools.
again, i chose a bit of a bad example to visually compare since the focused parts on this specific picture are very processed (her face), only picked it because it was the highest filesize file by a bit.
but yeah, not sure if this was done with the same tool mentioned above, but it's obviously compressed and not just metadata, resolution is lower. not a bad result for 1/4 the filesize though
 
Ok I went a grabbed mat2 for cleaning of images and exiftool for analysing how the hell we went from 94Mb to 6.8Mb.
For my test, MAT2 saved around 64 MB because it had converted an archival JPEG into a standard JPEG while keeping the full 102MP resolution. It did not just remove metadata.
Machi's editor left a few photo editing metadata in there, but the main thing I believe is chroma subsampling. For example, instead of storing 4 colour samples it stores 1 colour sample every 4 pixels this reduces the file size by 75%.
Mat2 compresses color information very aggressively, while keeping the brightness detail for human eyes we really cannot tell the difference.
OriginalMAT2 cleaned
Resolution8742×116568742×11656
Megapixels101.9 MP101.9 MP
JPEG qualityPhotoshop Quality 12Unknown
Chroma subsamplingYCbCr 4:4:4YCbCr 4:2:0
EXIFFull camera metadataRemoved
Lightroom editsIncludedRemoved
Photoshop dataIncludedRemoved
File size71 MB6.8 MB
 
Interesting. IIRC chroma subsampling only really matters for HDR, so not a big deal for most and maybe just a remnant of the editing and rendering process. I'm definitely not enough of an image and color nerd for me to try and visually compare the difference lol. Maybe that's the process that this other tool does.
good find though, really good to know for some of us that are starting to struggle with disk space while the market is still fucked :sadKEK:
 
Ok, I'm gonna admit i am stupid. So i just want to ask if the link of the newest compress file still have the same quality as the original or its has been reduced a little. I Have to ask because all i care is the quality
 
Hi, just recently joined this disc, I haven't read all about photo quality yet.
For me, I'll just torrent the original one it's 8gb
 
damn, forgot to not ask in the content thread and got my post deleted (sorry about that)
anyway, it was a question: is it just me (am i blind?) or was this pic added later to the post for the new set? i dont see it on the zip either
 
Damn, so i just download the og file instead. Welp this is gonna be a long ride
 
Back
Top