Image Resizer

[Al]

One of the things I missed most about XP was the neat little powertoy offered by MS that allowed you a simple right click of the mouse to resize any image file. I upgraded to Win 7 recently and have been searching for a similiar powertoy.

I found one that works just like the power toy in XP. Here's a link:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Image-Resizer-Powertoy-Clone.shtml

It looks like this one isn't using the same algorithms as the XP PowerToy. With the XP version I almost never got increased file size when resizing to the same dimensions. Unless it was a very small file, the resulting file was always smaller (usually much smaller) or at worst, the same size. Tonight I had 6 or 7 files come back much bigger in file size. Bummer. Guess I'll have to do a bit more work while trying to conserve file server space.

Is there an option of the quality of the saved *.jpg? With most programs it's set for medium quality so each time a *.jpg file is saved, the file size and quality is reduced. If quality is set on high, the file size may not be reduced.

The Powertoy clone doesn't but VSO does. Just for grins I ran one of gam's recent attached photos through both. Original file size was 318kb. The Powertoy clone bumped it up to 436kb, while VSO set at 90% using linear filtering bloated it to a whopping 596kb. I can no longer use the original XP PowerToy Image Resizer, but I'd be surprised if it created anything bigger than 250kb at the same dimensions.

In my limited experience, 65% or higher still results in a nice picture.

Al

[RichardM]

Just for grins I ran one of gam's recent attached photos through both. Original file size was 318kb. The Powertoy clone bumped it up to 436kb, while VSO set at 90% using linear filtering bloated it to a whopping 596kb. I can no longer use the original XP PowerToy Image Resizer, but I'd be surprised if it created anything bigger than 250kb at the same dimensions.

Hmmm, it could be that gam's picture files are a special case, as when I tried opening it with an old version of Micro$oft Paint and saving it without modifications, the file size jumped a lot. Never seen that happen before, as usually just doing that strips out enough data (like Exif info) to drop the file size considerably. Back at home in Windoze 7 I tried resizing it to 1280x857 using the Powertoy Clone, VSO linear at 90% and 65%, and Windoze Exploder "right-click->send to", which I believe uses the same algorithms as the original Powertoy resizer. The results:
Powertoy resized it to 1278x857 at 263kb. VSO at 90% resized it to 1279x857 at 379kb, VSO at 65% resized it to 1279x857 at 202kb, and Windoze Exploder's "send to" option resized it to 1280x857 at 282kb. I'm a little bit concerned that the different tools produced different widths. As to which technique is better, I think I may just give up on conserving file server space until it fills up. That way everyone will be forced to use external photo servers (photobucket, picasa, etc) and I won't have to deal with it anymore. Oh, I'd probably allow non-photo attachments, but even that would require pruning lots of old stuff. Either way it involves more work for me, so if everyone wants to do me a favor, use an external host and post links to images with a maximum width/height of 640. That's the maximum embedded viewing size and anything bigger just slows down page loading for everyone.

And no, this is not a request for anyone to go modify old posts and remove picture attachments (unless your name rhymes with ShaneA ). There are a few large, old attachments I can nuke right before the server reaches its limit. However, if you feel industrious, you could always go through your old posts and upload any attachments to one of the glorious external file hosts, then edit your post to remove the attachment(s) and instead embed the linked image file.

[homerboy2u]

NUKE' em!!!...be done with them. It will give us an excuse to return to the places and re do the story, all over again.

Moderator note: nuke followups moved here

[dkerr24]

Just an update... notice that a revised version of the image resizer is now out...  with different resolution sizes.  Here's where I found it:

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/releases/view/30247

There's a 32 and 64 bit version there for download.  I like the new size choices in low/medium/high.

[RichardM]

Just an update... notice that a revised version of the image resizer is now out...  with different resolution sizes.  Here's where I found it:

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/releases/view/30247

There's a 32 and 64 bit version there for download.  I like the new size choices in low/medium/high.

Hmmm, that's the same one I downloaded back in January. I still wish they'd add a "leave pixel size intact" option.

[badknees]

Hmmm, it could be that gam's picture files are a special case, as when I tried opening it with an old version of Micro$oft Paint and saving it without modifications, the file size jumped a lot. Never seen that happen before, as usually just doing that strips out enough data (like Exif info) to drop the file size considerably. Back at home in Windoze 7 I tried resizing it to 1280x857 using the Powertoy Clone, VSO linear at 90% and 65%, and Windoze Exploder "right-click->send to", which I believe uses the same algorithms as the original Powertoy resizer. The results:
Powertoy resized it to 1278x857 at 263kb. VSO at 90% resized it to 1279x857 at 379kb, VSO at 65% resized it to 1279x857 at 202kb, and Windoze Exploder's "send to" option resized it to 1280x857 at 282kb. I'm a little bit concerned that the different tools produced different widths. As to which technique is better, I think I may just give up on conserving file server space until it fills up. That way everyone will be forced to use external photo servers (photobucket, picasa, etc) and I won't have to deal with it anymore. Oh, I'd probably allow non-photo attachments, but even that would require pruning lots of old stuff. Either way it involves more work for me, so if everyone wants to do me a favor, use an external host and post links to images with a maximum width/height of 640. That's the maximum embedded viewing size and anything bigger just slows down page loading for everyone.

And no, this is not a request for anyone to go modify old posts and remove picture attachments (unless your name rhymes with ShaneA ). There are a few large, old attachments I can nuke right before the server reaches its limit. However, if you feel industrious, you could always go through your old posts and upload any attachments to one of the glorious external file hosts, then edit your post to remove the attachment(s) and instead embed the linked image file.

Richard

What did you mean by this?

I'm a little bit concerned that the different tools produced different widths.

[RichardM]

Hmmm, it could be that gam's picture files are a special case, as when I tried opening it with an old version of Micro$oft Paint and saving it without modifications, the file size jumped a lot. Never seen that happen before, as usually just doing that strips out enough data (like Exif info) to drop the file size considerably. Back at home in Windoze 7 I tried resizing it to 1280x857 using the Powertoy Clone, VSO linear at 90% and 65%, and Windoze Exploder "right-click->send to", which I believe uses the same algorithms as the original Powertoy resizer. The results:
Powertoy resized it to 1278x857 at 263kb. VSO at 90% resized it to 1279x857 at 379kb, VSO at 65% resized it to 1279x857 at 202kb, and Windoze Exploder's "send to" option resized it to 1280x857 at 282kb. I'm a little bit concerned that the different tools produced different widths.

Richard

What did you mean by this?

I'm a little bit concerned that the different tools produced different widths.

You'd think that if one tool scaled it down to 1280x857 that all of them would come up with the same ratio. If it were off by just 1 it wouldn't bug me, but to be off by 2?

I still think that gam's pics are a special case, as I have yet to observe this behavior with any other files.

[badknees]

It's 2 pixels. That's like 0.02 inches on a 96 ppi display.

[RichardM]

It's 2 pixels. That's like 0.02 inches on a 96 ppi display.

As a software developer/maintainer, I was just a bit disturbed by the difference in output. The original size was 1798x1205. I'm too lazy to play with the math right now, but I guess it depends on which dimension the tool scales to along with rounding differences (single version double precision, inadvertant type conversions, etc). I picked 1280x857 because that's what Windoze Exploder generated when resizing to 1280x1024. I've put in a request to add my resize option reference.

[presidio]

NUKE' em!!!...be done with them. It will give us an excuse to return to the places and re do the story, all over again.

If you just don't post photos then there's nothing to resize and no disk space to fill up.  
Problem solved before it starts.  

Then the posts would become like the old-time radio shows where the skill of the writer paints the proper picture in your mind. Elegant and simple.

[homerboy2u]

Presidio.......

[tbone]

If you just don't post photos then there's nothing to resize and no disk space to fill up. 
Problem solved before it starts. 

Then the posts would become like the old-time radio shows where the skill of the writer paints the proper picture in your mind. Elegant and simple.

Dude, you flatter yourself just a bit too much

[presidio]

Presidio.......

Hey! Just doing my part to keep the internet bloat-free at a nearly infintesimal rate.

[presidio]

Dude, you flatter yourself just a bit too much

It's like fishing....dangle a hook and see what happens.

[dkerr24]

Hmmm, that's the same one I downloaded back in January. I still wish they'd add a "leave pixel size intact" option.

lol... guess I should have added 'new to me' on that post.  I still had an older version with 640x480 as one of the options!