Thumbnail database size
Thumbnail database size
After some thought I have decided to give PS a try (already a idimager user). As a test I have just imported a series of folders that contain jpg's, the total size of the folders is just over 4Gb. I'm rather surprised to see the thumbnail database size is practically the same at just over 4Gb, this seems rather large, have I missed something, is there an option to save thumbnails at a reduced quality to save space.
I tried the same group of folders with ACDSee6 and the total database size (including thumbnails) is around 0.6Gb.
Anyone else noticed this?
Paul
I tried the same group of folders with ACDSee6 and the total database size (including thumbnails) is around 0.6Gb.
Anyone else noticed this?
Paul
Re: Thumbnail database size
PS also stores previews which of course takes up a lot more space than the thumbnails alonepaulgul wrote:After some thought I have decided to give PS a try (already a idimager user). As a test I have just imported a series of folders that contain jpg's, the total size of the folders is just over 4Gb. I'm rather surprised to see the thumbnail database size is practically the same at just over 4Gb, this seems rather large, have I missed something, is there an option to save thumbnails at a reduced quality to save space.
I tried the same group of folders with ACDSee6 and the total database size (including thumbnails) is around 0.6Gb.
Anyone else noticed this?
Paul
W7/64bit, IDimager V5 ProSL
Re: Thumbnail database size
Are these previews optional? if so how do I prevent them or turn them off.
-
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: 10 Jul 08 13:18
Re: Thumbnail database size
Yikes! I just realized that previews apparently are not optional. If I'm right about that, how does one review a RAW file or its embedded JPEG at 100% to critique sharpness?paulgul wrote:Are these previews optional?
Re: Thumbnail database size
The stored previews are not optional. There is an options item to "load full size images" for the embedded and the full screen "previewer". For raw it requires waiting a bit while dcraw does its demosaicing stuff, naturally. The option persists for the "session", but defaults to off for each invocation of PSU. You can't get full size in the light table.Mike Buckley wrote:Yikes! I just realized that previews apparently are not optional. If I'm right about that, how does one review a RAW file or its embedded JPEG at 100% to critique sharpness?paulgul wrote:Are these previews optional?
- Attachments
-
- PSU show full size.png (311.85 KiB) Viewed 12975 times
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; SSD; 16GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)
-
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: 10 Jul 08 13:18
Re: Thumbnail database size
Thanks, Jim. I now remember seeing that capability being discussed and had completely forgotten about it. By the way, that sound you just heard was a big sigh of relief coming from me.
Re: Thumbnail database size
So from what I understand then there is no way to reduce the database size. It just seems rather odd that the database is effectively doubling the amount of disk space required by the images. If this is so, then I'm afraid this program is not for me, I have around 120Gb of images to catalogue and will finish up requiring 240Gb of disk space.
Re: Thumbnail database size
Paul,
you can change the size of the DB!
It's possible to change the preview size to a value between 640 and 1680 pixels in predefined steps.
After you have set the preview size, you need to build the thumbs and previews again. (don't know if it is necessary to compact the Thumbnail DB afterwards)
As bigger the preview size as bigger the DB!
HTH
Michael
you can change the size of the DB!
It's possible to change the preview size to a value between 640 and 1680 pixels in predefined steps.
After you have set the preview size, you need to build the thumbs and previews again. (don't know if it is necessary to compact the Thumbnail DB afterwards)
As bigger the preview size as bigger the DB!
HTH
Michael
PSUServer 2024.x, PostgreSQL 12.x
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
Re: Thumbnail database size
Must admit I didn't see that optionweidmic wrote:Paul,
It's possible to change the preview size to a value between 640 and 1680 pixels in predefined steps.
HTH
Michael
I've rebuilt the Db at 640px and the size has come down to 1.6Gb, I still consider this to be rather large for 4Gb worth of images.
Could someone explain why previews of jpg images are required when the original image is online, just seems a case of duplication.
Paul
-
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: 10 Jul 08 13:18
Re: Thumbnail database size
The previews are most beneficial when reviewing RAW files, as displaying the preview is much faster than rendering the RAW data. You're right that previews are not particularly beneficial when viewing only online JPEGs, though my guess even then is that calling the preview from the database is faster than calling the physical image file, especially a full-size image, from the hard disk. It's the developer's choice to design the software so previews are built with no option not to build them.paulgul wrote:Could someone explain why previews of jpg images are required when the original image is online, just seems a case of duplication.
Re: Thumbnail database size
Right, it sounds a lot... (maybe ) You didn't tell us how many pictures you have cataloged!I've rebuilt the Db at 640px and the size has come down to 1.6Gb
Did you compact the thumbs DB afterwards?
Cheers,
Michael
PSUServer 2024.x, PostgreSQL 12.x
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
Re: Thumbnail database size
A total of 13600 images. I thought it would be easier to create a new catalogue so I assume there was no need to compact.
But going back to my original post I used ACDSee to catalogue the same batch of images and its Db was only around 0.6Gb - It does save previews but I'm not sure what size, the program is set on auto size so guessing they are probably small.
But going back to my original post I used ACDSee to catalogue the same batch of images and its Db was only around 0.6Gb - It does save previews but I'm not sure what size, the program is set on auto size so guessing they are probably small.
Re: Thumbnail database size
Paul,
Back the the amount of images:
14.000 images and only 4GB of space looks like the images are rather small.
If my calculations are correct your average image is around than 0.3 MB.
With very small images the advantage of having "previews" is very small...
But today, most pictures are much bigger than that - and as bigger the images in your catalog as bigger is the advantage of having previews saved in a database!
Hope you get the point of what I am trying to say.
Cheers,
Michael
Absolutely! A new catalog should not need to be compacted...I thought it would be easier to create a new catalogue so I assume there was no need to compact.
Back the the amount of images:
14.000 images and only 4GB of space looks like the images are rather small.
If my calculations are correct your average image is around than 0.3 MB.
With very small images the advantage of having "previews" is very small...
But today, most pictures are much bigger than that - and as bigger the images in your catalog as bigger is the advantage of having previews saved in a database!
Hope you get the point of what I am trying to say.
Cheers,
Michael
PSUServer 2024.x, PostgreSQL 12.x
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
My homepage http://www.michaelweidner.com
-
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: 10 Jul 08 13:18
Re: Thumbnail database size
When we're referring only to original images that are JPEGs, I see no significant advantage to having previews stored in the database. I especially see no advantage that merits the extra storage space that is required and the time that is required to build the previews and store them.weidmic wrote:as bigger the images in your catalog as bigger is the advantage of having previews saved in a database!
Re: Thumbnail database size
Yes, you're correct about the size, these are not modern camera images, these were collected some years ago and arranged in "buckets" of around 4GB when backups were performed on dvd'sweidmic wrote: If my calculations are correct your average image is around than 0.3 MB.
Cheers,
Michael
Perhaps the designers of the software will one day give users the option of not having previews - we live in hope