1072

submitted 1 day ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

150 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago

a typical jpeg of 20 Mb

Uh what. Literally should be the highest fucking possible quality from a $10K camera if it's that big. My raw images aren't even that big usually.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 14 points 15 hours ago

Raw images is where you go wrong. You need at least 10 mb of metadata tags to achieve professional levels of file sizes. How can you even look at a picture without having a full description of all your childhood memories that lead you to take this beautiful picture of yesterdays mac''n'cheese dinner. This is why we need more data centers.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Lol I'm so lost what the joke is here

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 9 hours ago

I'm so meta even this acronym is metadata

[-] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Its not typical, but you can get 20 Mb+ jpegs out of an entry level 18MP dlsr. Especially if there's lots of color and at like 5500x3300 resolutions and created with 100% quality preset.
I checked my immich and I have some (and larger), but yeah, not exactly typical.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

I am not sure I've ever used the 100 quality setting on jpegs. Many years ago I experimented with that a lot and decided that anything over 90 was not different to my eye but the file size was much bigger, relatively speaking. So yeah I suppose if you did use 100, a 20 MB jpeg image is not hard to reach.