Exporting a jpg is 3 times larger than CS3

Clearly I'm missing some setting - I'm opening jpgs that had been created with FW CS3 and immediately saving it (for troubleshooting purposes). Optimize Quality is set to 75 | Smoothing 2. The file is fully 3 times larger than it was prior to save. I've exported instead of the straight Save and have the same result. I've lowered the Quality to 60 to make sure I was invoking the compressor ... the file lost 2k.
So a 260x83 bitmap moves from an acceptable 5k to 17k (or 15 with unacceptable compression level)?
Can't be right. Not even Adobe could have mucked up FW this badly.

Not too certain about this, but the increase in file size might be due to additional meta data in the file - that easily adds ~10kb to the file, so it might explain what you are seeing. But as far as I am aware, the save for web functionality in FW should remove meta data.
Use RIOT (radical image optimization tool) (win) or ImagOptim (mac) to check if this is the case or not, and remove the meta data.

Similar Messages

  • SAP BW Key figures displayed 100 times larger than it should

    Dear all,
    I'm using Crystal Reports 2008 SP2 und SAP Intetegration Kit X3.1 SP2 to create a report upon a BW Query (7.01). Several key figures are displayed exactly 100 times larger than it should. Only the formatted value  is displayed correctly.
    Is anyone familiar to this phenomenon?
    best regards,
    madadm

    Solved:
    the regional settings of the client machine have to match the servers' .This have been hard times...

  • Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

    Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

    Kevin If you don't understand don't try to take the discussion offline via private message.  Other that have the same problem will not benefit if taken offline here is you PM.
    Hi,
    Thanks for your response to my question. What is the best way to adjust to match resloutions of pictures/photos, etc in PSE 12. I am trying to layer photos and selections from photos but when I cut and paste, sometimes I get this HUGE image that doesn't even come close to fitting on the screen.
    Thanks!
    Kevin
    Kevin
    You need to understand pixels better know what is going on when you do things.  All pixels are not created equal.  Some have better quality the others.
    When you have a camera that take captures  3000x2000 px for an image and you have a good lens and exposure setting you wing up with 6,000,000 quality pixels for your image.
    If you resample that image  for the web to fit within 300x200 pixels you wind up with a 60,000 high quality web size image. Or a high quality image that will fit on your display at its resolution. The images resoultion setting is meanless for displays use their resolutuin they do not support image print DPI resolution setting.  And Displays do not hava a 72DPI resolution. 
    So when your post processing think about Pixels DPI is meaningless except when you use a unit based on DPI like inches.  However also remember Displays do no support the images print dpi resolution.  The only time 1" on display equal 1" in print is when the images print resolution is the same as the display you are using. All displays do not  have the same resolution/ Most desktop displaye are around 100DPI that is changing and Laptop and tablets can have resolution above 300DPI. So what will nor fit on your displat may well fix on a laptop or tablet.
    DPI is actual pixel size 100DPI pixels a 1/100" x 1/100" = 10,000 per square inch  300DIP 1/300"x 1/300"  90,000 px per sq inch.
    The same number on pixels image on a 300dpi display is 9 time larger on a 100Dpi display. What may not fit one your low resolution display may fit on the same size high resolution display for the display  displays more pixels then your display can.
    If you resample that 300x200 web size image to back to a 3000x2000 pixel image for print you wind up with 6,0000,000 lower quality pixels. 
    Though the 300X200 pixels image was a high quality web size image much of the original 6,000,000 image quality was reduced in the 300x200 px image. Much of the detail you had in the original 6,000,000 pixels image was discarded in the process.  The new 6,000,000 pixels image was made only from a 60,000pixel image they were not captures using a camera exposure.  The camera had the actual real detail in front of it to capture.  All the computer had were 300x200 pixels it has to add details for the larger image and it does by interpolating the 300x200px image.
    Preserve the pixel you get from your cameras. They are the highest quality pixels you will ever have for your images.  Every time you resample an image up or down in number of pixels you loose some image quality.   Not one of the original pixels remain intact you wind up with a totally new image created by interpolating the old image.  Do not save the new image over the old image and loose your good high quality pixels. 

  • Imported video files are 7-8 times larger than the original!!!

    I really like iMovie but the thing is iMovie imports my video files (taken in my AVCHD Sony Handycam HDR-CX11E) with an approximatly 7 times larger file size than the original file size of the movie. And still I have chosen the option "Large - 960 x 540". I really don't know if there is any solution to this "problem". I would be thankful for anyone who could give me a solution.
    Regards

    The best way to find out is to try it. Take a small but representative sample, do some edits, export as H264, then reimport, do some edits, export again.
    I expect some degradation, but here mostly the problem may be the quality (or lack thereof) of the analog originals.
    Also, let me clarify: QT movie per se means nothing in terms of quality or compression. The QT is a container format. Inside it can be a high quality, high bitrate ProRes 4444 or a highly compressed H264, or a number of other things.
    In FCP X, when you export a Master File, you get to decide in the settings which codec to use (e.g. Prores vs H264), but the output file will still be a QT file.

  • FLV are 5 times larger than original wmv

    Is anyone experiencing there FLV files to be 5 time larger in
    file size than the original wmv file? I made sure the dimensions
    are the same, audio the same, video settings match and all. I can't
    figure out why its so dramatically larger.

    It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
    If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
    My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
    Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
    InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

  • Imported iMovie video 6 times larger than .mts files on camcorder

    I would like to be able to watch all my HD video footage on my iMac, but when imported using iMovie it takes up FAR too much hard drive space.
    I am importing video from a Canon Vixia AVCHD camcorder (HF21). The native .mts files on the camera are about 10GB per hour (~ 6 hrs of footage on the 64GB internal memory), but when I import the video using iMovie, they expand by around 6 times, to about 60GB per hour (that is, the .mov video files saved in iMovie Events folders are HUGE, 60GB per hour, or ~ 1GB per minute).
    This seems too large to be practical; the first 6 hours of import took up ~360GB of storage - and that was only the first time I'd used the camera and imported footage! So I only get less than 2 full uses and imports of the camera's memory before my 1TB iMac is completely full (not including what is already on there).
    I have started "Archive All" to save the video footage in it's raw format, but now the footage is not usable or watchable on the iMac unless I go and import it again with iMovie - where once again it expands to 6 times it's size.
    Is there a solution to this? How can I make all my HD footage watchable on the iMac, retaining the full quality raw HD of the video, but not take up more than 1/3 of my 1TB hard drive each time I import from my camcorder?
    If I import to iMovie, then export as a smaller file, surely I will lose quality?
    I have heard it can be done with Final Cut, is that correct?
    Thanks a lot.

    Thank you AppleMan1958 for that link to your earlier post. I have spent way to many hours tonight trying to work out why Nanna's Christmas video clips off her new JVC suddenly filled my HD. iMovie warned me that an hour of video at full would take 40GB. Gross underestimate lol.
    I have decided I will import as large just to off stuff to DVD or quicktime format for the family then dump the iMovie Event in the trash and do an archive of all the footage to keep it for future editing. I'm lucky to have an external raid as the backing up of externals just starts becoming expensive in redundant backup drives.
    I would be very cautious of using DVD's for backup as I have seen them fail too easily after a only a few years.
    wardyf18 - My understanding is that importing on the Large setting gives you 960x540 resolution which isn't as good as the 1280x720 supported by older Apple TV's but I havn't noticed much difference in recent testing.
    I believe the newest Apple TV will support 1080 on H.264 format but if you are playing MPEG4 it only supports 640x480 anyway. As a lot of my older stuff was converted to MPEG4 for iTunes so I now realise most of what I watch is only 640x480
    mvmum - after hours of reading tonight I have come to the realisation that a Mac actually handles the editing of HD video pretty well but ADVHC is just not a good editing codec. Converting a 'group of pictures' codec to a 'full frame' codec is going to give you a large file on any system. Unfortunately a 'full frame' codec appears to definately be the best way to edit and anything that edits a 'group of pictures' codec like ADVHC has other quality problems.
    Thanks all for your discussion and advice.

  • Using the Premiere pro CC 2014 exported media file size is much larger than estimate, also is so much bigger than Premiere CS 6?

    I used the preset H,264 Youtube 1080HD to export a video. The estimate size is 7308 MB {after I reduce the nitrate). The final size is 11.18 GB.
    Why is so much different? Befor I Use the Premiere CS6 to export a simial size use the same format Is around 6GB.

    First of all, the estimated file size just an estimate based chiefly on the combination of the bitrate and duration. The actual size can vary significantly, depending in large part on the amount of change from frame to frame throughout the video. For example, if you encode two clips of identical duration to exactly the same settings, the only difference being the nature of the content--say on is a talking head interview shot with the camera locked down on a tripod while the other is skateboarding footage that was shot handheld--the size of two resulting outputs files will be widely divergent.
    As to the comparison between CS6 and CC2014, note that the settings for some presets have been changed. For instance, the h.264 YouTube 1080 presets went from 8Mbps to 16.

  • When I export a PDF the file opens larger than resolution so it is pixelated? How do I stop this?

    I have created a Indesign document of 1024 x 768 and exported it as a 72dpi PDF. The PDF is only to view on screen.
    My problem is that when I export the PDF it always opens more then 100%. So everything is slightly pixelated. To see everything in focus as I want it I would need to zoom out.
    Obviously I want everyone to view it as I see it so how do I get around this.
    I choose 1024 x 768 just incase someone wanted to view it on a Ipad. Should I have just created it bigger to over compensate of this problem. I guess on an Ipad the PDF would just be shrunk so the whole page could be viewed and I guess that wouldn't be pixated?
    Thanks in advance for any help!
    Dan

    Set the initial view in Acrobat Pro and resave the PDF there.
    Bob

  • When opening an image in Photoshop CC, the file appears at a size many times larger than the file I'm opening:  a 1mg file opens as 9mg.  This started in the past few days.  What has happened?

    My files have suddenly started opening in Photoshop CC in a much larger size:  a 1mg file will open as 9mg, for instance.  The more layers I add, the more the multiplication until I'm up so large the program closes down.  This never happened before and I don't know if I've changed something by accident or what.  HELP!

    Let's try something easy. Reset your preferences.
    If in Windows, close Photoshop, then double click the PS icon to start it.
    Now very quickly hold down the Ctrl-Alt-Shift keys, and you will see a delete settings dialog where you would answer "Yes".
    See if that fixes it, if not...we will need more information:
    Adobe product and version number
    Operating system and version number
    The full text of any error message(s)
    What you were doing when the problem occurred
    Screenshots of the problem
    Computer hardware, such as CPU; GPU; amount of RAM; etc.

  • Why is the downloaded app 3-4 times larger than the size listed in the App Store?  The settings show Angry Birds go at 316 mb and the app desc size is 93 mb; the FB is about 3 times larger also.

    Found this trying to manage the storage on the ipad.  Just wondering if the file size listed on the App Store is a zipped file.  If so, isn't that misleading?

    Thank you... just what I thought.  Be helpful to know the expanded size to manage  available space...

  • Converting old CS files to CS5 is creating hugh files-4 to 6 times larger than original. How can I a

    I've been trying to convert some old CS files into CS5 files. These are simple files: some text, simple line work, a photo or two (tiff, jpeg or eps) and some simple illustrator art. These files were typically 500k to 800k. The updated files are 3 - 6mg. I tried to start with a new file and copy/paste the text, line work and art and would end up with a file around 2 - 3 mg without photo. What do I need to do to end up with a normal size file?

    It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
    If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
    My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
    Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
    InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

  • Flash CS5 File Size 1800% larger than CS3/4

    We have 500+ FLAs that are essentially a sequence of PNGs loaded into the timeline, with a bit of AS3 code thrown in for the controller.
    If we import the PNGs into a new, empty Flash CS3/4 document, add the document class and save the file, the resulting .fla is approx. 800Kb.
    If we import the PNGs into a new, empty Flash CS5 document, add the doc class and save the file, the resulting .fla is 18Mb.
    The resulting Published SWFs are within 1Kb of each other regardless of version, so it's clearly nothing to do with the content or the exporter.
    Anyone know what's going on? This has just jumped our storage requirements through the roof.
    Thanks
    T

    Update: in case anyone asks, the total size of all PNG assets is about 2.5Mb. Clearly CS3/4 is using some kind of RLE compression on the PNGs, which is fine. But that doesn't account for the additional 16Mb. What the heck is CS5 throwing in there?

  • Help asap - LR tiff export 3X larger than Photoshop tiff export

    I need to send 15 tiff files through an FTP site for an upcoming exhibit, and having exported files to the required specs find that they are huge, compared to exports straight from Photoshot set to exactly the same parameters - almost 3X larger to be exact. These are 16-bit grayscale scans of 4X5 negs.
    I could export each one directly from Photoshop of course, but I like the look of the files, which I have altered slightly using the develop settings in Lightroom 2.
    What to do? There are tight deadlines, of course. I should get these out tomorrow if possible.

    Jan,
    Lightroom can only export greyscale images as RGB (3 channels), hence the file being 3 times larger than Photoshop. However, you can use the Edit in Photoshop command (Ctrl/Cmd+E) to send the Lr edited greyscale file to Photoshop, convert it back to greyscale (single channel) then save it from there.

  • Lightroom JPEG files far larger than equivalent Photoshop files?

    I'm using Lightroom 2.3 on a Mac. If I take an image and export it from Lightroom as a JPEG at the 60 quality setting, the resulting JPEG is typically around 2-3 times larger than the same file saved from Adobe Photoshop CS3 using the High Quality setting in 'Save for Web and Devices'.
    Lightroom does not appear to be generating a preview or anything else that would account for the disparity.
    To get Lightroom to shrink files down to the sizes that Photoshop produces, I need to reduce the quality to a level at which the images contain glaring JPEG artifacts.
    I'd like to use Lightroom as part of my web workflow, but this is pretty much a showstopper. Exporting to TIFF, then using Photoshop batch actions to try to automate a conversion to JPEG runs into the problem that Photoshop's "Save for Web and Devices" command can't be fully automated (it's not possible to override the save location).
    So my questions are:
    1. Why is Lightroom's JPEG compression so poor in comparison to Photoshop's?
    2. Is there any way to get around this?
    3. Is it safe to use Photoshop's standard 'Save as ...' command in place of 'Save for Web and Devices' when preparing images for the web (I have a distant memory that 'Save As ...' used to export metadata that would choke certain browsers, but I don't know if that's still true in CS3).

    It looks as if metadata contributes about 4-8K to the image. Photoshop is stripping a large part of the metadata (even with 'include XMP' on), which contributes to the difference, but doesn't explain it completely.
    Here are some test results:
    Test Image #1: 660 x 440:
    Lightroom 2 (60, with metadata) - 170,904 bytes
    Lightroom 2 (60, without metadata) - 164,142 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (60, no metadata) - 141,489 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (30, no metadata) - 72,394 bytes
    Test Image #2: 660 x 440 (no metadata)
    Lightroom 2 (70) - 124,231 bytes
    Lightroom 2 (60) - 88,448 bytes
    Lightroom 2 (60) - 80,560 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (Save for Web 70) - 94,032 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (Save for Web 60) - 69,654 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (Save for Web 30) - 32,287 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (Save 8) - 93,517 bytes
    Photoshop CS3 (Save 7) - 73,067 bytes
    However, there's a quality difference to be taken into account as well. Photoshop 60 is about equivalent to Lightroom 70.
    To compare the images, I took the original image (scaled to 660 x 440 by Lightroom) and layered the JPEG over it, then set the layer to 'Difference' to reveal JPEG compression artifacts. Lightroom at quality level 60 shows visible artifacts; Photoshop Save for Web at level 60 does not. To get the artifacts to disappear, I have to take Lightroom up to about 70, by which time the Lightroom files are almost twice the size of the Photoshop files.
    Just for amusement, I tried Graphic Converter as well. GC is a great program, but its JPEG conversion turns out to be vile: even at a quality setting of 100, the artifacting on fine near-vertical lines is obvious to the naked eye.
    Using Photoshop's own 'Save' (rather than 'Save for Web') command yields similar results. quality level 8 in 'Save' appears to be fractionally poorer than quality level 60 in 'Save for Web'.

  • Why is the log larger than the normal mdf file

    I have SAP installation that has a log that is more than ten times larger than the normal mdf file. This rapid growth happen in the past year. running 8.81

    Hi,
    Please check SAP note:
    625546
    - Size of transaction log file is too big
    1651592 - Unable to reduce the size of the Log file
    Thanks & Regards,
    Nagarajan

Maybe you are looking for