BajiRav Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I only want to use my Google Drive account as a backup device, so I don't mind if the images are made smaller (via. smaller dimensions or a higher level or compression). Any idea how to make this happen? I don't want to sound like an ass but you are not backing up your photos if they are being resized. :/ 123456789A, Dick Montage and Praetor 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papercut2008uk Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 why dont you just use Mega? they give 50GB free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted March 22, 2014 MVC Share Posted March 22, 2014 You could think about using Amazon Glacier if fast retrieval isn't important. Not free but it would cost you $0.40 per month for your 40 GB. It costs to retrieve more than 1GB a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Why would he do that? He would then be responsible for the destruction of the universe. No, that would happen if they were to have sex.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Scrip Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I only want to use my Google Drive account as a backup device, so I don't mind if the images are made smaller (via. smaller dimensions or a higher level or compression). Any idea how to make this happen? I'm confused. Why would you ever want your backup to be smaller files? I.E. non-originals? If something happened to your originals... all you'd have left would be those smaller or more-compressed files. That's kinda the opposite of a backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 No, that would happen if they were to have sex.... God i don't even want to know what would happen it she had sex with someone. Thief000 and The Evil Overlord 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 God i don't even want to know what would happen it she had sex with someone. But if they touch with that much polar opposition, the temporal forces released without the appropriate amount of flux dispersion would create a paradox that would destroy the Earth....! LaP 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riahc3 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Actually it would :) The difference is that the compression algorithm sucks. zipping won't compress images much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Actually it would :) The difference is that the compression algorithm sucks. B/Sc Multimedia Studies. 1:1 1st year module: Image compression and manipulation We inequivocally proved that using ZIP compression on JPEG images achieves very little indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Actually it would :) The difference is that the compression algorithm sucks. How would zipping an image compress it? To compress an image you need to sacrifice detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 How would zipping an image compress it? To compress an image you need to sacrifice detail. Not 100% true. There are lossless methods for compressing data that would work to an extent on JPEG images. However, ZIP is not in that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamsebjørn Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I've been using this jewel for years: http://bluefive.pair.com/pixresizer.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Not 100% true. There are lossless methods for compressing data that would work to an extent on JPEG images. However, ZIP is not in that list. For all intents and purposes if you want to reduce an image's file size you have to sacrifice resolution/detail. You might be able to gain some trivial compression with whatever method you're talking about but nothing like what the OP requires. Thief000 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to buy an inexpensive 500 gig hard drive, and store all your photos -- full sized ? Put the hard drive off-site somewhere. And 40 gigs would fit on only 6 DVDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to buy an inexpensive 500 gig hard drive, and store all your photos -- full sized ? Put the hard drive off-site somewhere. And 40 gigs would fit on only 6 DVDs. Nope. 4.7gig each DVD.... so you will need 9 DVDs for 40gig files. (unless you compress those stuff into zip file which the file size will be smaller.. too much work.) Standard DVD = 4.7gig HD DVD = holds up to 30gig (dual layer) Bluray DVD = holds up to 50gig (dual layer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^ Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Nope. 4.7gig each DVD.... so you will need 9 DVDs for 40gig files. (unless you compress those stuff into zip file which the file size will be smaller.. too much work.) Standard DVD = 4.7gig HD DVD = holds up to 30gig (dual layer) Bluray DVD = holds up to 50gig (dual layer) Y'know, you *can* buy dual-layer DVDs... Thief000 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Y'know, you *can* buy dual-layer DVDs... I know that.. I was telling Hum about those types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polarman Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Just buy a 64Gb flash drive. Hum 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 For all intents and purposes if you want to reduce an image's file size you have to sacrifice resolution/detail I am talking about the data of a file, not the imagery content. Encoding techniques can vastly alter the way image data is stored. JPEG is a lossy encoding technique. Not all techniques are lossy. You might be able to gain some trivial compression with whatever method you're talking about but nothing like what the OP requires. Trivial by who's definition? A statement was made that was flawed. I am simply setting it straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 :s :s :s :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts