Can't upload 40 GB of photos to my 15 GB Google Drive account


Recommended Posts

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. :/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...
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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.