Thumbnail database size

[Hert]

I have around 120Gb of images to catalogue and will finish up requiring 240Gb of disk space.

You have 13600 images that require 1.6GB in the preview/thumb database. That means that the average size per image is 123Kb. I don't see how 120GB of images could require more disk space in the preview database, unless your images are smaller than 123KB per image. Also, even with a preview size of 640px, smaller images will lead to smaller previews; in other words, a preview of a 100px photo will not be stored as 640px.

You mention 120GB of images but that doesn't say anything. If you have 120 image that are 1GB per piece then that is 120 GB of images but a preview database of 14MB. How many image make up this 120GB? The volume count is what determines the preview database size.

Is the size of the previews database your only criteria for a cataloging tool?

When we're referring only to original images that are JPEGs, I see no significant advantage to having previews stored in the database.

Having previews is a MAJOR benefit and is the main driver for the overall performance experience. Disk loading is slow compared to loading from the database.

Hert

[paulgul]

Hert,
You haven't read the whole thread properly, the comment of mine you quoted was made before reducing the preview size to 640px. At that time the database size was the same as the cataloged images so 120Gb of image would have given 120Gb database - a total of 240Gb disk usage.
Other organizers seem to manage very well without using large preview files so i don't understand why PS couldn't.

<edited by admin; please don't advertise for competitive tools on the forum>