Uploading to Google Photos From Computer Bad Quality
Google Photos has long offered 1 of the best deals in all of photo storage: it'll back up your entire library for complimentary, then long as information technology can compress the images a bit. But as of tomorrow, June 1st, that deal goes abroad, and yous're now eating through Google storage (which yous may have to pay for) whether your images are compressed or not.
With the modify looming, I've been wondering how bad Google'south pinch actually is. Does the compression get out my photos in "High Quality," as Google has claimed for years? Or does the compression degrade my photos enough to make it worth using more storage by switching over to "Original Quality" backups?
I ran some quick tests this morning to find out. I took some photos and videos from my Pixel 5 (i of a few phones that volition continue to get gratis compressed storage) and a photo from my Fuji X-T30 and uploaded them to 2 split Google Photos accounts, 1 with compression turned on and 1 that maintained original quality.
The results were mixed. For photos, the compressed versions were often duplicate from their uncompressed counterparts. But in one case you're losing resolution, the compression actually starts to show.
Here's what I constitute across a handful of tests. Yous can click the images to view them at a larger size.
I can't find a difference in this photo of my true cat
Here'south a photo I took recently of my cat, Pretzel. I zoomed in on his pilus, his eyes, and the books in the background, and I can't observe a departure. The photograph, taken on a Pixel v, was originally 3.4MB just was compressed down to i.5MB.
This ultrawide photo looks basically the aforementioned
I took this picture on Yale's campus last weekend with the Pixel 5's ultrawide photographic camera. Both versions wait groovy while in full screen on my reckoner. You could probably make an statement well-nigh whether there's some more noises effectually the edges of the leaves in the compressed version, but I'1000 more often than not of the mindset that if you have to search for paradigm issues, they don't really matter.
The space saving isn't very substantial here: Google'due south pinch takes the file size from seven.3MB to 5.7MB.
The image size shrinks dramatically from my mirrorless photographic camera
Here'south a photograph I took this morning of Pretzel on my Fuji Ten-T30. I zoomed in on his face, and couldn't find a divergence even when both were blown upwards as big as Google Photos could make them.
At kickoff, it seemed like this was a situation where Google Photos' pinch won out: the file size shrank from 12MB to just 662KB, and the images look practically identical.
But in that location'due south one very notable difference. Google caps photo resolution at xvi megapixels, which shrank the photo significantly from the original 26 megapixel file my camera saved. Hither's a zoomed-in crop showing how the detail starts to disappear as blocky noise comes in:
At present look, I don't know that I need all 26 megapixels of this paradigm at this signal in fourth dimension. Only if I ever wanted to print this photo in a larger format, crop information technology down the road, or otherwise make changes to information technology, those extra pixels would be a huge advantage to have retained.
Video compression is just bad
There's nothing inherently wrong with 1080p video, but in that location is something wrong with the way Google processes it. And unfortunately, if y'all apply Google'south compression, all your videos will be compressed at 1080p.
When that happens, everything becomes smudgy, details just vanish, and some colors even lose their pop. Information technology's a really pregnant downgrade in terms of quality. I'g non able to embed a Google Photos video here, so I included a screenshot comparison above. I retrieve you can see nearly of the differences, although it's much clearer how blurry text becomes at larger sizes.
I originally recorded this video in 4K back on my Pixel 5 back in Feb. It looks nice enough on my non-4K computer screen. Street signs, faces, and the falling snow all look sharp. Only the compressed version is kind of a mess — information technology looks like I recorded it with a layer of grease on my camera lens.
The loss (or savings) of data is a big ane here: information technology falls from 55MB for this 10 second clip to just 6MB. No wonder it looks and so much worse.
The compression makes a divergence... sometimes
I all the same came away mostly impressed past the quality maintained after Google's pinch. For photos, the result tin can exist nearly duplicate and then long as the original file is under 16 megapixels. Simply for videos, there's no question that uncompressed is the way to become. Information technology's besides bad that Google doesn't permit you set unlike options for photos and videos.
The existent drawback is that compressing your photos doesn't always save a ton of space. That extra infinite definitely adds up as you lot push thousands of new photos into the deject each year. But if you're going to have to pay anyway, it might exist worth maintaining your photos — and specially your videos — at their total quality, specially if you're uploading them in higher resolutions.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/31/22461871/google-photos-compression-comparison-storage
0 Response to "Uploading to Google Photos From Computer Bad Quality"
Postar um comentário