1
I have hundreds of JPEG photographs which were scanned about 5 years ago from negative using a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV. The dimensions are ~4500x3000, and the filesize is around 12Mb, compared to shots from a DSLR with dimensions of 3000x2300 and filesize of 2-4Mb (actually, these are the output from a RAW convertor). The filesize is obviously quite a big difference, but the issue that's bothering me is that the (perceived) loading time is at least 10 times slower.
Is this size/speed discrepancy likely to be because the scanner software saved the JPEGs inefficiently / using an old compression format, or is it simply that the scanned negatives contain much more "detail" (in the form of grain/noise) than the digital images? If the former, is there a way to losslessly optimize them? I've tried re-exporting the scanned files to full size JPEG from my RAW software but the filesize is pretty much the same.
Both files will have been saved at 100 quality.
completely unrelated to the image format or processing, but on an OS note: if you're on Windows of any flavor using NTFS or FAT filesystems, keeping them well-defragged can help bigtime. run defrag after every major scan batch -- it's likely your imaging software isn't saving each file in a contiguous chunk, which will increase load times. – quack quixote – 2009-10-04T15:44:03.893