Peeps
I have noticed a bug ... well 2 actually, one as a result of fixing another.
In versions before 1.80.1 when you created a web page and asked for the Date from EXIF data to be added to the Caption, all worked fine.
However, 1.80.1 introduced a bug that ignored this info when it produced the page. I think it was because the EXIF data was stripped BEFORE it was read to use on the caption ... but I'm only guessing.
Now this bug was fixed in 1.80.3 BUT I think the developers rushed the fix out a bit quick as now the EXIF data is useable in the caption BUT the thumbnails (and I think the copied/resized originals) now have a large overhead due to the EXIF data being kept.
For example, all my thumbnails, produced from images with EXIF data, now have sizes of 50Kb+, even though they are only 150 x 112 JPEGs !!! That's approx. 10 TIMES the size they were before !!
If you open each file and then resave without the EXIF data then it goes back to the 2Kb-9Kb range BUT this takes ages to do.
That means that for the poor old modem internet surfer, it takes minutes just to download 9 thumbnails, let alone the originals.
I suspect this hasn't been noticed as so many people use Broadband now.
Hope this helps AND can be fixed soon please.
PS: I checked the latest 2 releases (1.82.1 and 1.82.2) and this was still happening.
John
Create WebPage - thumbnails super-sized !
Moderators: helmut, XnTriq, xnview
One possible work around would be to remove the EXIF thumbnails from all your pictures habitually. The EXIF thumbnail is the source of the bloated size (the rest of the EXIF data rarely adds more than 1K or 2K). The EXIF thumbnails are really pretty useless and just bloat the images (and they don't get resized when you resize the image. That 40k thumbnail doesn't have much effect on the filesize of a 500k+ original pic, but has a horrid effect on the filesize of the 10k reduced pic). This still has to be done manually (adding the removal of EXIF thumbnails in batch mode should be added to the request list), but you can do it to all of your original pics and then never have to think about it again.
Oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer's nipples bonk!
Drahken
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that. I did wonder why EXIF data was taking SO much space. Didn't realise about the thumbnail.
Now the question is, where did it go before ? Presumably THAT is the bug rather than the EXIF data being stripped out during WebPage Create ?
That would actually be helpful because I would rather leave the EXIF even in the reduced size originals so that info is still accessable.
Also, for the record, I dont remember EVER seeing an option to remove EXIF thumbnail before you mentioned it ! I presume it is added by the camera rather than XNView and I just never realised it was there ?
It's just such a shame when a feature is improved/added only to introduce a small (but pain in the butt) bug.
Thanks anyway, although changing the pix one by one is gonna be very painful.
John
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that. I did wonder why EXIF data was taking SO much space. Didn't realise about the thumbnail.
Now the question is, where did it go before ? Presumably THAT is the bug rather than the EXIF data being stripped out during WebPage Create ?
That would actually be helpful because I would rather leave the EXIF even in the reduced size originals so that info is still accessable.
Also, for the record, I dont remember EVER seeing an option to remove EXIF thumbnail before you mentioned it ! I presume it is added by the camera rather than XNView and I just never realised it was there ?
It's just such a shame when a feature is improved/added only to introduce a small (but pain in the butt) bug.
Thanks anyway, although changing the pix one by one is gonna be very painful.
John
The camera inserts the annoying EXIF thumbnail. I think a few high-end progs can insert such a thumbnail if you tell them to, but generally nothing other than a camera inserts EXIF thumbnails.
The edit metadata->remove exif thumbnail option has been in since at least 1.80, I think it was also in 1.74, and may have been in even before that.
In theory, the exif thumbnail makes previewing the image quicker since it doesn't have to generate a thumbnail each time. While that may hold true while previewing the pic in the camera, it just doesn't apply when viewing it on the PC.
I first discovered this exif annoyance when someone asked me to help him reduce the filesize of an image without ruining the quality. I knew that the filesizes he was getting were far too large for the dimensions involved and tried removing all the exif/itpc data. When that had the desired effect, I wondered just what in the exif could be so big, that was when I tried removing the thumbnail and discovered the truth (take the blue pill! take the blue pill!).
The edit metadata->remove exif thumbnail option has been in since at least 1.80, I think it was also in 1.74, and may have been in even before that.
In theory, the exif thumbnail makes previewing the image quicker since it doesn't have to generate a thumbnail each time. While that may hold true while previewing the pic in the camera, it just doesn't apply when viewing it on the PC.
I first discovered this exif annoyance when someone asked me to help him reduce the filesize of an image without ruining the quality. I knew that the filesizes he was getting were far too large for the dimensions involved and tried removing all the exif/itpc data. When that had the desired effect, I wondered just what in the exif could be so big, that was when I tried removing the thumbnail and discovered the truth (take the blue pill! take the blue pill!).
Oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer's nipples bonk!
Now, I hate disagreeing with someone who is clearly trying to help, but I think Drahken isn't completely correct (Sorry Drahken 
).
I have done some research and a few tests with some photos from several digicams and found the following:
Also upon reading the EXIF specifications (well TRYING to read and understand!), it seems that for standard camera JPEGs the first 64Kb can be used for metadata about the image. But I could not find any info as to when/why the newer cameras seem to now allocate c.50Kb for EXIF data rather than the previous 4Kb. New standard adopted ?? Maybe.
So ...
That still leaves the question as to why XnView doesn't strip ALL the EXIF data when using WebPage Create, as it did before.
Pierre ... any ideas what may have changed to cause this ?
And finally ...
I have found a temporary workaround that may help people in a similar situation.
1. Create webpage as normal using XnView
2. Download (and virus check) a small command-line program called JHead from here: http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/
3. Copy the jhead.exe to the Windows directory. This will make it available from any command prompt.
4. Open a DOS prompt at the directory where the thumb.html file is created i.e. just above the image/thumbnail directories
5. Type the following command:
This will delete ALL image metadata (EXIF, IPTC) from ALL jpg images in this directory and all subdirectories - SO BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU START !
I look forward to comments/corrections - 'cos I'm certainly not perfect either
John
).I have done some research and a few tests with some photos from several digicams and found the following:
- The EXIF thumbnails seem to range from approx. 4k to 9k depending on camera but mainly photo content i.e. range of colours/brightness as the original would.
- The older cameras I have looked at (Minolta F100, Nikon E5000) have a value in the EXIF data called "Thumbnail Offset" and this is exactly 4084 (bytes?).
- Now we get to the interesting bit ... on the newer cameras I have tested (Samsung UCA-5, Pentax Optio MX) this "Thumbnail Offset" is now in the region of 40000 to 55000.
- When using XnView to strip the EXIF thumbnail the filesize decreased by EXACTLY the size indicated in the "Thumbnail Size" EXIF value - as you would expect.
- When using XnView to strip the EXIF data completely the filesize now gets down to sensible levels for a 150 x 112 image i.e. c.3-4Kb.
Also upon reading the EXIF specifications (well TRYING to read and understand!), it seems that for standard camera JPEGs the first 64Kb can be used for metadata about the image. But I could not find any info as to when/why the newer cameras seem to now allocate c.50Kb for EXIF data rather than the previous 4Kb. New standard adopted ?? Maybe.
So ...
That still leaves the question as to why XnView doesn't strip ALL the EXIF data when using WebPage Create, as it did before.
Pierre ... any ideas what may have changed to cause this ?
And finally ...
I have found a temporary workaround that may help people in a similar situation.
1. Create webpage as normal using XnView
2. Download (and virus check) a small command-line program called JHead from here: http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/
3. Copy the jhead.exe to the Windows directory. This will make it available from any command prompt.
4. Open a DOS prompt at the directory where the thumb.html file is created i.e. just above the image/thumbnail directories
5. Type the following command:
Code: Select all
jhead -purejpg **\*.jpgI look forward to comments/corrections - 'cos I'm certainly not perfect either
John
I can't follow my fellow posters completely:
@Zollies: I created a webpage with 1.82, and the webpage-thumbnails, still having their EXIF-thumbs, are 15 kb. After removing the EXIF-thumb with an EXIF specialized program called Exifer the file is still around 15kb. Seems there are different types of thumbnails around...would still be good if XnView stripped the exif data before creating the webpage thumbs.
@Drahken: EXIF-Thumbnails are very useful, as they show a very fast preview of a file without the program having to resize/resample the image. Makes creating a thumbnail overview from a folder opening the first time much faster. So one would usually want to leave them in the image, if size-optimization to the last byte is not necessary.
Martin
@Zollies: I created a webpage with 1.82, and the webpage-thumbnails, still having their EXIF-thumbs, are 15 kb. After removing the EXIF-thumb with an EXIF specialized program called Exifer the file is still around 15kb. Seems there are different types of thumbnails around...would still be good if XnView stripped the exif data before creating the webpage thumbs.
@Drahken: EXIF-Thumbnails are very useful, as they show a very fast preview of a file without the program having to resize/resample the image. Makes creating a thumbnail overview from a folder opening the first time much faster. So one would usually want to leave them in the image, if size-optimization to the last byte is not necessary.
Martin
XnView 1.93.4 on Windows XP SP2
Martin
As I am sure you know already, the final size would depend on many factors, but the main ones would be size and quality setting. However, it seems that some more recent cameras are now allocating 40-60Kb for the metadata (EXIF data and thumbnail). Examples I have are the Samsung UCA-5, Pentax Optio MX, Samsung V70.
Sorry, I didn't mention the quality setting that I was using.
My thumbs are mostly 150 x 112 and 50% quality with sharpening via XnView. This gives me thumbs from 3.5Kb to 5.2Kb BUT only AFTER I manually remove the EXIF data part. Prior to that they are 52Kb to 55Kb !!! You see why that's a problem.
When I have used XnView before I am sure that it removed the EXIF data when creating thumbs. In fact the largest ever size I have is 13Kb and that is for a complex 200 x 134 thumb at 80% quality. When I reduce that now to 50% it drops to 8Kb.
So there are 2 issues here:
John
As I am sure you know already, the final size would depend on many factors, but the main ones would be size and quality setting. However, it seems that some more recent cameras are now allocating 40-60Kb for the metadata (EXIF data and thumbnail). Examples I have are the Samsung UCA-5, Pentax Optio MX, Samsung V70.
Sorry, I didn't mention the quality setting that I was using.
My thumbs are mostly 150 x 112 and 50% quality with sharpening via XnView. This gives me thumbs from 3.5Kb to 5.2Kb BUT only AFTER I manually remove the EXIF data part. Prior to that they are 52Kb to 55Kb !!! You see why that's a problem.
When I have used XnView before I am sure that it removed the EXIF data when creating thumbs. In fact the largest ever size I have is 13Kb and that is for a complex 200 x 134 thumb at 80% quality. When I reduce that now to 50% it drops to 8Kb.
So there are 2 issues here:
- the EXIF/metadata size is larger in more recent cameras - I have no idea why.
- the fact that XnView seems to NOT remove this when creating thumbs for web pages.
John
Zollies- I haven't had the opportunity to check it with very many different cameras, but with both my own camera and that of someone else with a similar problem to yours, removing the exif thumbnail reduced the filesize by approx 50kb. Considering the fact that the resized pic without the thumb was also around 50kb, removing the exif thumb had a massive impact on filesize.
Oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer's nipples bonk!
Bottom-Line for default behaviour:
- Embedded thumbnails should be kept in the original large files
- Embedded thumbnails should be updated when doing normal editing
- Embedded thumbnails should be removed for web, small/preview images, etc...
(as small images will be thumbnailed by XnView very quickly as well)
Olivier
- Embedded thumbnails should be kept in the original large files
- Embedded thumbnails should be updated when doing normal editing
- Embedded thumbnails should be removed for web, small/preview images, etc...
(as small images will be thumbnailed by XnView very quickly as well)
Olivier
Right, i'll fix it, thumbnail must not have EXIF or IPTC data...zollies wrote: For example, all my thumbnails, produced from images with EXIF data, now have sizes of 50Kb+, even though they are only 150 x 112 JPEGs !!! That's approx. 10 TIMES the size they were before !!
If you open each file and then resave without the EXIF data then it goes back to the 2Kb-9Kb range BUT this takes ages to do.
That means that for the poor old modem internet surfer, it takes minutes just to download 9 thumbnails, let alone the originals.
I suspect this hasn't been noticed as so many people use Broadband now.
Pierre.