Batch Resizing Based On File Size

I have a lot of very large (400-600Mb) tiff files (from a scanner) that all have different ratios (some square, some 4:3, some extreme panoramic). Is there a way I can batch resize them all to a certain file size? (eg 200Mb)
I've been looking everywhere but can't find anyone on any forums trying to do the same thing. Strange because i thought it might be quite a common problem.
Thanks for any help/advice,
Lewis

Resizing is very much dependent on Image compression algorithms (or what ever they are called)… My Guess is that this is beyond the 'average' scripter if you wanted to deal with the open file data size then this can be done. If you want to deal with saved file's system sizes you may well be out of luck…

Similar Messages

How to pick the multiples based on file size

Hi All,
my sender file adapter needs to pick up 5 files based on file size.
for example 1file size is 500kb,2nd file size 300kb,3rd file size 400kb, 4file size 100kb and 5file size 600kb.
here my requirement is, my file adapter needs to pick in the below order like 5th file,1st file,3rd file 2nd file and 4th file.
means based on file size, i need to pick up my file adapter.
could you please ang inputs on this requirement.
Thanks & Regards,
AVR

Hi AVR,
for case 2:
1. At specific time each day "23:58:00" hours ,count the number of files in directory say "c:\apps\acm".
2. sort the files on basis of their size.
3. place the files one by one after definite time interval (more than polling time of the sender communication channel).
in target directory say "c:\apps\acm1" from where PI server picks up the files for further processing. The file with smallest size is placed last.
4. In this case you need to ensure all files are present in the directory "c:\apps\acm" before "23:58:00" hours.
for case 2 java code
import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileInputStream;
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import java.util.Calendar;
import java.util.GregorianCalendar;
public class sortFilesOnSpecificTime {
* @param args
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
try
* In Unix/Linux OS, dir1="/usr/apps/test" etc
int pollingInterval=10,sleepTime=1*60;
String dir1="c:\\apps\\acm";
String dir2="c:\\apps\\acm1";
File fread=new File(dir1);
File fwrite=new File(dir2);
if(fread.canRead()==false)
System.out.println("error: "+dir1+" does not have read permission. Program Terminates.");
return;
if(fwrite.canWrite()==false)
System.out.println("error: "+dir2+" does not have write permission. Program Terminates.");
return;
String fileNames[],fileNamesOut[];
long fileSize[];
int i,j;
byte b[];
int t=4;
Calendar cal;
int hour24,min,fileCopyHour=23,fileCopyMin=58;
long waitSeconds=1,currentTime=0;
while(t>0)
cal = new GregorianCalendar();
hour24 = cal.get(Calendar.HOUR_OF_DAY); // 0..23
min = cal.get(Calendar.MINUTE); //0..59
System.out.println("current time="+hour24+":"+min);
/*loop unless time reaches a specific predetermined value
* predetermined values are provided by values
* fileCopyHour=8,fileCopyMin=30 i.e say 08:30 hours
currentTime=(hour24*60+min)*60;
waitSeconds=(fileCopyHour*60+fileCopyMin)*60 - currentTime;
if(waitSeconds>0)
* in case you wanna to make this thread sleep for
* say sleepTime(10) minutes before it checks the files once again
* because looping continuously causes wastage of CPU cycles.
Thread.sleep(waitSeconds*1000);
//read list of files
fileNames=fread.list();
if(fileNames.length;=0)
* time is up but there are no file
* in dir1 to copy. Then this program
* goes to sleep for some time and
* checks only at 11:55 hours. That is
* end of the day
continue;
fileSize=new long[fileNames.length];
fileNamesOut=new String[fileNames.length];
//read their sizes
for(i=0;i<fileNames.length;++i)
fileNamesOut=fileNames;
fileNames=dir1+System.getProperty("file.separator";)+fileNames;
fileSize=new File(fileNames).length();
System.out.println(fileNames+" size="+fileSize);
//sorting on basis of file size descending order
long value;
String temp;
for(i=1;i<fileSize.length;++i)
value=fileSize;
temp=fileNames;
for(j=i-1;j>=0 && fileSize[j]<value;--j)
fileSize[j+1]=fileSize[j];
fileNames[j+1]=fileNames[j];
fileSize[j+1]=value;
fileNames[j+1]=temp;
//now copy files to dir2
b=new byte[512];
for(i=0;i<fileNames.length;++i)
System.out.println(fileNames+" size="+fileSize);
for(i=0;i<fileNames.length;++i)
File f=new File(fileNames);
FileInputStream in=new FileInputStream(f);
FileOutputStream out=new FileOutputStream(dir2+System.getProperty("file.separator";)+fileNamesOut);
int len=0;
while(2>1)
if((len=in.read(b))<0)
break;
out.write(b,0,len);
in.close();
//delete files after copying from dir1
f.delete();
out.close();
//put each file after polling interval is over
Thread.sleep(pollingInterval*1000);
catch(Exception e)
e.printStackTrace();
The code runs in infinite loop. You need to run them in command line in DOS environment as you indicated that you OS is WIN XP. I have a few print statements which I kept for debugging, you can safely remove them and run the codes. This code is independent of the Operating System you are using. Only change is required in values of "dir1","dir2", timings and file count, which I think you can take care easily.
Hope this solves your problem.
regards
Anupam

Save For Web vs. Resizing vs. File Size vs. PNG

In playing around with some settings while saving a .png file, I noticed some weird results. For this example, the original image is 300 x 300, but I want the final size to be 200 x 200. I get different results depending on the order I perform the following operations (I never thought the order mattered until now).
1. start with 300 x 300 image, choose save for web, select png-24, with transparency, white matte, convert to sRGB, change image size to 200 x 200, then save - the file size is 37kb
2. start with 300 x 300 image, use Photoshop's "image size" to change to 200 x 200, then save for web, etc - the file size is 111kb
So depending on which step I resize the image, the file size is significantly different - if I resize BEFORE using save for web, the file size is much larger. This is just weird to me, but I always resize AFTER choosing save for web, so that's why I've never caught this until now. In case you ask, while using Photoshop's "image size", all three options are checked at the bottom of that window, so nothing is getting re-sampled or anything like that.
The only thing I can think of is each of those methods treat pixel data differently when reducing the dimensions. When I overlay both exported .png files on top of each other, I see no difference in pixel quality and/or color shift - so why the big difference in file size? Unsurprisingly, if I just save the file straight to .png, the sharpness is much better, and the file size is 46kb. I did notice when saving for web, the colors become a little more saturated.
Are all these results typical? I've never really paid much attention to the results when exporting .png's. I always thought the results were lossless (in general).

Too many variables
What? There are 2 variables here (variables = scenarios = steps). Only two different operations.
1. resize the image, THEN use "save for web" = 91kb
2."save for web", THEN change image size = 157kb
Hopefully my logic translates here:
All other settings are the same. I even made sure the .psd was sRGB this time. The specific question was "why does the different workflow order produce such a big difference in file size"?
In creating a new test file (http://www.shan-dysigns.com/userForums/photoshop/savePNG.zip), I did notice an interesting thing: (I'm including my files in case you want to follow along or test for yourself)
If I merge all layers BEFORE performing the steps above, the file sizes were relatively closer to one another - 168kb and 157kb (respectively from the 1, 2 list above)
One thing to note is all the .psd layers are either shapes or text - this whole scenario may be totally different if each layer had rasterized content (actually, it does, by about -20kb).
The file size in step 1 above didn't jump until it had to consider rastered text/shapes into the calculation. So all this tells me the difference in file size has to do with how each process handles vector data. Maybe when you allow PS to resize the image first, the overall file size is smaller because the vector data gets recalculated???
I don't know how to properly interpret all these differences, but I do know there is something about PS's operation of resizing the canvas with vector data versus resizing the canvas with rasterized data - this has to be where the difference in file size lies.
Maybe I've just wasted a bunch of time on the obvious, but I think I learned something here. Now my head hurts and my eyes have popped out of my head.
So, Chris, I guess there ARE more variables in this situation. My curse is being nosey and wanting to know more technically about PS than most casual designers probably would care about.

Resizing photos to file size.

Hi all, I'm trying to resize a pic to 10 k file size for use as an online avatar. Ideally I'd like to keep it around 100 by 135 pixels. In Windows this is very easy but in the amazingly overhyped and under-featured iphoto it appears to be well nigh impossible. Any ideas on how to do this for someone who desperately wants to stay in osx but increasingly finds App apps unfathomably obtuse? Thanks for your time.

Yep, been there done that but no joy. There's no mention of re-sizing a photo by file size in the help file and no ability to do so in Export. And to tell the truth, having to export to re-size is really clunky not to mention, somewhat erratic. I managed to get the file down to 8 kb by reducing it to 45 x 45 pixels but that's too small. My next size was around 105 x 140 and came in at 20 kb. I attempted to reduce the file size by reducing the photo size in stages down to 60 x 80 but the file size would increase rather than decrease. Any useful input?

Help to resize at a file size threshold

I feel as though there must be a simple solution to this issue but I just can't break through. I am attempting to resize an image so that it will be uploadable in a media building program. This program does not allow me to import images greater than 200K and so I went to the image resize function in Photoshop CC. There I found under Image>Image Size, as always, the window which includes the size and dimension attributes of the image (which, incidentally, is a single layer psd as "Background"). As I change the dimensions of the image, I can get the Image Size in the window to reduce to under 200K by changing the resolution, width, and height as needed. When I save the image as a jpg, it does not allow the image to be saved as anything smaller than 1.1M. In the jpeg options window, the file size when saved at a quality of 12 is 1.2M but is 1.1M at a quality setting of 0. I must be missing something. Can anyone shed some light on this for me, please? Thanks!

That worked. For the sake of the discussion, do you suppose that there was something about this image (like metadata) that would simply not allow it to be compressed any further than the minimum size I described? It would make sense given that the image quality was progressively worse as I experimented with reopening the newly saved and slightly smaller file each time. Even then, I could only get a small reduction in total data quantity but the images became poorer and poorer, as you would expect, as the jpeg options window told me I was getting smaller and smaller. The image started to look like it was capped from somebody's Minecraft screen but the size was still up around a meg.

Allocation units based on file size

Hi Experts,
I have 11gR2 RAC environment which i installed recently with ASM.
When i create a datafile of size 12GB its taking 2MB extra.
For storing what information this 2MB is taken, as far as my understanding, 1MB is for maintaining block extent mappings inode information, how about the remaining 1MB?
2. Does the number of allocation unit varies if i create 32GB like additional 4MB will be taken by oracle asm, is there any specific formula
Your help will be much appreciated
Thanks,
Shine

Resizing is very much dependent on Image compression algorithms (or what ever they are called)… My Guess is that this is beyond the 'average' scripter if you wanted to deal with the open file data size then this can be done. If you want to deal with saved file's system sizes you may well be out of luck…

Resize Video, both the file size and actual size

Hi All,
I am very new to Adobe Premiere (CS3). I have had it for a while but not needed to use until now. A client of mine has sent me a video that he wants on his website. But it’s 150M and 1280 * 720. Can anyone help me out with how I can resize both the file size and actual size to say 800 * 450 so it can stream it via the net?
Like I said very new to this,
Cheers,
Mike.

The first thing you need to do is determine just what KIND of file you were sent, so you may start a project that matches the file
Read Bill Hunt on a file type as WRAPPER http://forums.adobe.com/thread/440037?tstart=0
What is a CODEC... a Primer http://forums.adobe.com/thread/546811?tstart=0
What CODEC is INSIDE that file? http://forums.adobe.com/thread/440037?tstart=0
I don't do streaming video, so you should search the help file... I **think** what you want out is a Flash file, but that is only after you know what you are going to load into the CS3 timeline

Filtering by file size

Hi,
I was *so* hoping that we'd finally be able to filter (or create a Smart Collection) based upon file size.
There are many reasons why this would be useful but the thing that trips me up every once in a while is that I'll forget to flatten my layers in Photoshop and the resulting tiff could be over 500 MB! Everyone once in a while I'll manually find the large files, flatten the layers, then re-import them into LR - in the specific case I mentioned the file was reduced to 17MB.
This seems like an obvious, useful, and easy to implement feature. Not sure why we don't have it yet...
Thanks!
RJ

In the Any Filter implementation, the incremental cost of an additional search criterion such as File Size is very small -- just a few lines of code. I'd guess that the same would hold true for the LR implementation.
But there's a fairly long list of additional search criteria that are important to some number of LR users, including: nested smart collections, virtual copies, stack size and position, file size, (cropped) megapixels, (cropped) width and height, numeric aspect ratio, explicit keywords, additional IPTC and IPTC extension fields, GPS lat/long/altitude/distance, subject distance, all the develop settings.   I know that these are plausibly important from reading the forums and requests received from Any Filter users. Even excluding the develop settings, Any Filter roughly doubles the number of criteria.
I think Adobe has tried to identify a small subset of search criteria that satisfies the great bulk of workflow needs. Overall, I think they've been pretty successful at that. But if they decided to add one or two of the criteria from the list above, they'd probably find themselves on a slippery slope, not being able to distinguish the priority of one criterion versus another (e.g. file size, numeric aspect ratio, megapixels, GPS distance).
But if they add more than a couple of criteria, they'd face some non-trivial design and engineering issues:
- Should they index every additional criterion in the catalog database, to make the smart-collection searches instantaneous (as they do with the current criteria)?   Or would increasing the number of indexed criteria by 2x significantly slow down importing and incremental metadata editing? Alternatively, should they document that some of the less-used criteria won't execute in smart collections "instantly", and then make that distinction clear to users somehow in the user interface?
- With 2x the number of criteria, the current user-interface design becomes unwieldy. In Any Filter, I was forced to introduce another level of drop-down menus, making it slower to access the most common criterion.   Adobe might think twice about that, not wanting to complicate the most common simple cases for the sake of lesser-used criteria. Perhaps there's a better, much different interface design that can keep the more common cases simpler and fast, while still providing access to a larger set of criteria.

How can I batch resize images to a file size of 1 meg?

I'm not the most technically literate mac user and would gratefully receive any help please.
I have been asked to reduce lots of images of various large file sizes and dimensions to 1 meg. I am using Photoshop CS4 and am aware of the 'Image Processor' function under 'scripts' unfortunately it only allows me to adjust the image dimensions, but I need to reduce the file size so that every image is 1 meg and at 300 dpi, it doesn't matter about the image dimensions.
Thanks so much!
Jess

You omitted to name the file format you want to use.
If you use any compression the task is far less trivial than you might think.
Trying to predict the effect of the compression (even if it were non-destructive) is not always sensible so the viable approach may be to save, check file size, if above intended one change dimensions, save, check file size etc.
I think I have come across thread/s on this in the Scripting Forum but I can’t remember anyone ever posting a finalised Script for this.

Save for Web with Optimize File Size for Batch Process

I have a client who needs to be able to run a batch process on jpg images ranging in size from 600KB to 2.5MB optimizing their file size as close to 200KB as possible. The feature is included in Photoshop's save for web optimize dialog but it doesn't work for batch processes. If you record an action with the optimize to file size option set it processes all the images in the batch based on the quality settings required to resize the image you used during recording, meaning if the image you recorded was 1.5MB the quality setting might be 70 percent to hit the 200KB mark but that wouldn't be the correct quality setting for a 600KB file nor a 2.5MB file those would either be too small or too large.
I've done quite a bit of searching both online and in the photoshop scripting forums but I haven't been able to find anything that would point me in the right direction.
My client's paying for this work so if there's someone who knows how to script this who'd rather be paid than just do some pointing we can arrange for that quite easily.
Thanks in advance for your assistance and suggestions.
In case it's of importance we're using Photoshop CS4.

If you don't mind spending a few bucks on a shareware prog, Jpegsizer has the option to save to a filesize.
You can find it here.
http://www.tangotools.com/jpegsizer/register.htm
There is a free trial version, but you can't save files.

How can I auto export a PDF File using the "Smallest File Size" preset and set the Exported File Name based on information from an Imported PDF?

Greetings all,
I am trying to create a script to automate a PDF export process for my company for inDesign. I’m fairly new to inDesign itself and have no previous experience with javascript, although I did take C++ in high school and have found it helpful in putting this code together.
We have an inDesign template file and then use the Multi-page PDF importer script to import PDF files. We then have to export two version of each file that we import, then delete the imported file and all of the pages to reset the template. This has to be done for nearly 1000 pdf files each month and is quite tedious. I’m working on automating the process as much as possible. I’ve managed to piece together code that will cleanup the file much quicker and am now trying to automate the PDF exports themselves.
The files are sent to us as “TRUGLY#####_Client” and need to be exported as “POP#####_Client_Date-Range_North/South.pdf”
For example, TRUGLY12345_Client needs to be exported as POP12345_Client_Mar01-Mar31_North and POP12345_Client_Mar01-Mar31_South.
There are two templates built into the template file for the north and south file that are toggled easily via layer visibility switches. I need to get a code that can ideally read the #s from the imported Trugly file as well as the Client and input those into variables to use when exporting. The date range is found in the same place in the top right of each pdf file. I am not sure if this can be read somehow or if it will have to be input manually. I can put North or South into the file name based on which template layer is visible.
I am not sure how to go about doing this. I did find the following code for exporting to PDF with preset but it requires me to select a preset and then type the full file name. How can I set it to automatically use the “Smallest File Size” preset without prompting me to choose and then automatically input some or preferably all of the file name automatically? (If the entire filename is possible then I don’t even want a prompt to appear so it will be fully automated!)
PDF Export Code (Originally from here: Simple PDF Export with Preset selection | IndiSnip [InDesign® Snippets]):
var myPresets = app.pdfExportPresets.everyItem().name;
myPresets.unshift("- Select Preset -");
var myWin = new Window('dialog', 'PDF Export Presets');
myWin.orientation = 'row';
with(myWin){
    myWin.sText = add('statictext', undefined, 'Select PDF Export preset:');
    myWin.myPDFExport = add('dropdownlist',undefined,undefined,{items:myPresets});
    myWin.myPDFExport.selection = 0;
    myWin.btnOK = add('button', undefined, 'OK');
myWin.center();
var myWindow = myWin.show();
if(myWindow == true && myWin.myPDFExport.selection.index != 0){
    var myPreset = app.pdfExportPresets.item(String(myWin.myPDFExport.selection));
    myFile = File(File.saveDialog("Save file with preset: " + myPreset.name,"PDF files: *.pdf"));
    if(myFile != null){
        app.activeDocument.exportFile(ExportFormat.PDF_TYPE, myFile, false, myPreset);
    }else{
        alert("No File selected");
}else{
    alert("No PDF Preset selected");
So far my code does the following:
1) Runs the Multi-Page PDF Import Script
2) Runs PDF Export Script Above
3) Toggles the Template
4) Runs #2 Again
5) Deletes the imported PDF and all pages and toggles template again.
It’s close and much better than the original process which was almost 100% manual but I’d like to remove the Preset prompt from the PDF script and have it automatically select the “Smallest File Size” preset. and then if there’s a way to have it auto-fill in the file name so no user input is required at all other than selecting each file to import. (If there’s a way to setup a batch action for the multi-import script that would be even better!)
Thanks in advance and if there’s anything else I can provide that would help please let me know! Even a nudge in the right direction will be a big help!

If you hold down the option key, it will typically show the location. Or you can often hit option-return on the file and it will reveal the file in the Finder, instead of opening it.
Final option is to open it, and just option-click the filename in the toolbar of Preview and it should show you the location.
It's probably an attachment to an email you've received. If you have Mail set to cache emails and their attachments it'll be stashed in a subdirectory of ~/Library/Mail. Which is fine.

Reducing file size in batch processes (multiple files)

I am now using a canon XTi 10.5 megapixel camera. I'm loving it, taking tons and pics, and see my memory on my computer shrinking rapidly. I'm not too worried about hard drive space as I can simply buy another hard drive. Where I'm running into problems is on my iPod. I have an 80gb video iPod. It is suddenly full, Almost 1/2 with audio, 1/2 with photos. I'm realizing that I need take the 5-7 megabyte files each (photos) in iPhoto and reduce them down a bit in dimensions and/or jpeg compression.
I use photoshop elements and am familiar with the multiple files option. I've used that a bit, nice feature.
Heres my question:
I know iPhoto is sensitive to manipulation of photos/changes if the changes aren't done through its interface. How can I go about taking the original pics for a number of events (talking about perhaps 2000 pics right now) and batch process them down in size a bit without weirding out iPhoto?
Does iPhoto have an option to batch change files in such a fashion? Is it as simple as finding the originals in the finder and simpy reducing them in size and making iPhoto update its thumbnails?
and how do I make iPhoto update its thumbnails, I forget...
Thanks

If you just want displayable image files on the iPod and not the full sized files then a very good solution, IMO, is to export those photos you want on the iPod to a folder on the Desktop. Then use Resize! to batch change the pixel dimension and the jpg compression level of the files. For my iPod Nano I use 640 x 480 and have Resize! compress them to medium. That gives me files in the 100 KB size range. If you want a smaller file just increase the compressions level a bit. Resize! automatically creates a new folder for the resized images so you can try different levels on the same folder. You can get a lot of photos on your iPod at that size. I then put that folder of resized files in my Pictures folder and have iTunes use it instead of using iPhoto.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Can Photoshop Batch Resize Tiff Files?

I have quite a number of tiff files that I want to resize in terms of page dimensions and retain the same resolution / dpi. Can Photoshop batch resize tiff files?

Yes Photoshop ships with a plugin Fit image you can record an action to re-size an image to fit within some number of pixels. Image resolution setting and aspect ratio are not changed however the number on pixels the image will have will be less then or equal to the pixels size set. For example if you set width and height to 2000px the largest size image you could have after the operation would be 1:1 aspect ratio square 4MP 2000x2000. If your image has a landscape aspect ratio the re-sized image will be 2000px wide by less then 2000px high and if Portrait the re-sized is will be 2000px high be less then 2000px wide. Bicubic Interpolation for the re-size.
Once you record the single step action. You can batch the action. You can have batch open the image files and save over the original files or have batch save the resized files in a different location. Fit Image and Batch are both found in menu File>Automate>

How to reduce file size when using batch processing?

I use File > Process Multiple Files to batch process photos to a smaller file size along with adding my watermark. I've played with many different settings and no matter what I choose, I can't get my average file size to be less than about 200k. However, when I've exported the same photos using iPhoto, I can get the file size to about half of that with no difference (to my naked eye at least) in quality.
I definitely want to keep the height at 768 pixels so that needs to stay constant.
My current settings in batch processing (average file size = 200 kb)
Resize images with a height constraint of 768 pixels at 150dpi
What I've tried:
Resize at 72dpi (reduced file size by about 5kb)
convert file to JPEG low quality (reduced file size by about 10kb)
convert file to JPEG medium quality (not much difference in file size)
I'm using PSE 10 on a Mac running Lion.
Thank you in advance for your help!

You should go with default settings of Optimizer.
One difference between default settings of Optimizer and Reduce file size is that Optimizer does not guarantee a reduction in file size (if your Optimizer settings lead to an increase in file size, that's what you will get).
With Acrobat 9, the default setting in Optimizer has an additional setting which would not do an image optimization that results in increase of file size. In that sense it would in most cases give a smaller file.

I have Adobe Photoshop 9. I am a novice. How can I resize photos in my files using batch resize?

I have Adobe Photoshop 9. I am a novice. How can I resize photos in my files using batch resize?

In the Editor, use File...Process Multiple Files. See the Help for more info.
Ken

Batch Resizing Based On File Size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for