File size in back up is different from on laptop....

When I back up with Time Machine I noticed that the GB amount in my photos folder is different in both. It's less in the back up by about 7GB. Does this mean that it's not backed up properly?
I have 2 laptops which I back up with the same 1TB hard drive every now and again. Both laptops have 250GB hard drives. But the back up 1TB drive has only 270GB left. I'd be grateful for anyones thoughts on this..
.....Kevin

Time Machine does omit some things, including the iPod photo cache in iPhoto.
You might also try emptying the iPhoto trash; I'm not sure if TM backs it up or not.

Similar Messages

I was having ios 4.3 and decided to upgrade to ios 5 and in doing so I lost all my apps despite I restored from my earlier back up. The itunes I've backed up is different from the itunes I have used to upgrade-..

I was having ios 4.3 and decided to upgrade to ios 5 and in doing so I lost all my apps despite I restored from my earlier back up. The itunes I’ve backed up is different from the itunes I have used to upgrade….. I was wondering if I can get back my apps that were purchased using different apple ID (not mine). Since I am in Ethiopia doesn’t even have the chance to buy it again. I have searched it in my computer/c/user/adminstrator….but couldn’t find it. Anyone p/l help

When I updated my iPhone to IOS 5, I did it from my MB Air, when my iPhone's "home" is my work 27" iMac. I figured I could just download the new OS at home where internet is fast and then sync at office and be done.
WRONG!!! So, like others here, all my apps were "gone."
Following some of what I read above, I did the following and now all my apps that I purchased in the past are downloading to my 27".
In iTunes I went to Purchased, under "Store" in left column of iTunes.
Then at the bottom of the Purchased screen was something like Download all apps, borrom right (sorry, cant see it now, its downloading all of them). Once I hit that, I could see all my apps and it looks like they are all coming back.
Now all I have to do is put them all like I had them before, folders, etc. That will be a pain BUT at least I have all of them.

I used a different laptop to get songs how can i can my songs and ringtones back to my phone from my laptop

i used a different laptop to get songs how can i get my songs from my laptop back onto my phone

Iphone will sync/manage music with one computer at a time.
If you sync/manage with another, it will erase the current content from the iphone.
Put everything on one computer and sync to that computer.

Why Such a Huge Photoshop File Size Increase When Saving In CC from other versions?

Hello,
I have limited experience in Photoshop, and am working with a file with two other people. We are creating web comic pages. The line artist and colorist are both using CS 6. I have CC. The file I receive from them is around 238MB. If I open it and make even the slightest edit, Photoshop will not save it as it warns that the file size is too large (greater than 2GB!). How does this happen? Is it something in my preferences that causes 10x increase in file size?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!

Thanks for replying. First I didn't have this problem in the beginning. I do the same in CS5 and I can do it with no problem.

I cant' control the font - size displayed during edition is different from the ones (1 or more - never know) sent.

1) When I edit my e-mail, the font is always the same - arial 10 pts. But once the e-mail is sent, what I can see in my 'sent' box and what the receiver gets is all messed up, especially when I have pasted some text. There are parts with huge font and there are with such a small one that it's difficult to read it. Or the whole text is extremely large or tiny.
I need to write in HTML for I often must highlight some parts. I searched many forums but nowhere found any answer.
2) When i get an e-mail the problem is similar: it can be written with the letters you can distinguish from the other side of the room or on a contrary - you would use binoculars to read it comfortably. The least font is set to 10 pts.
Thunderbird 31.3.0, Win 7 (64).

From John Waller: “If you're using IE8, hit F12 to launch Developer Tools which give you a point and click method of locating the relevant CSS rule on screen.”
I have Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) so tried this method.
This sounded like another promising possibility; however, I have not been able to change the font size in my post using this method.
I have gone to Dashboard > Posts > Edit > then moused-over my post > clicked on "edit" and then hit F12. An enormous amount (20 pages or more) of CSS appears. I tried picking out the font size that I thought pertains to the post (under Text Area), and I have changed the font size from 13px to 24px; however, I have not been able to “save” the new setting. When I go back to it, it is back to 13px.
As a result, I have not been able to use a trial-and-error method to establish which font size I must change in order to change the font size of my post.

Problem with pasting table into text file as text. 09 is different from 08?

Okay, here's what I'm doing. I've got a table in Numbers which I want to make into a table on a web page. Here's what used to work with Numbers '08 and OS 10.5:
Select cells. Copy.
Open TextEdit.
Paste and Match Style.
Make Plain Text
Save As (filename)
Open PageSpinner
Go to Table Assistant and Insert File (filename)
Now I have a new computer, running 10.6 and Numbers '09. And when I insert the file as a table into PageSpinner, I've got a special character littered throughout. Specifically, line breaks seem to be replaced with delete characters (the right-pointing pentagon with an x in it).
So what has changed, and how can I cope?
--Dave

Hi Dave,
You can try reporting your own post and asking the moderator to delete it for you. Click the link in the lower right corner.
Jerry

Large PDF file sizes when exporting from InDesign

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone knew why some PDF file sizes are so large when exporting from ID.
I create black and white user manuals with ID CS3. We post these online, so I try to get the file size down as much as possible.
There is only one .psd image in each manual. The content does not have any photographs, just Illustrator .eps diagrams and line drawings. I am trying to figure out why some PDF file sizes are so large.
Also, why the file sizes are so different.
For example, I have one ID document that is 3MB.
Exporting it at the smallest file size, the PDF file comes out at 2MB.
Then I have another ID document that is 10MB.
Exporting to PDF is 2MB (the same size as the smaller ID document)... this one has many more .eps's in it and a lot more pages.
Then I have another one that the ID size is 8MB and the PDF is 6MBwhy is this one so much larger than the 10MB ID document?
Any ideas on why this is happening and/or how I can reduce the file size.
I've tried adjusting the export compression and other settings but that didn't work.
I also tried to reduce them after the fact in Acrobat to see what would happen, but it doesn't reduce it all that much.
Thanks for any help,
Cathy

> Though, the sizes of the .eps's are only about 100K to 200K in size and they are linked, not embedded.
But they're embedded in the PDF.
> It's just strange though because our marketing department as an 80 page full color catalog that, when exported it is only 5MB. Their ID document uses many very large .tif files. So, I am leaning toward it being an .eps/.ai issue??
Issue implies there's something wrong, but I think this is just the way
it's supposed to work.
Line drawings, while usually fairly compact, cannot be lossy compressed.
The marketing department, though, may compress their very large TIFF
files as much as they like (with a corresponding loss of quality). It's
entirely possible to compress bitmaps to a smaller size than the
drawings those bitmaps were made from. You could test this yourself.
Just open a few of your EPS drawings in Photoshop, save as TIFF, place
in ID, and try various downsampling schemes. If you downsample enough,
you'll get the size of the PDF below a PDF that uses the same graphics
as line drawing EPS files. But you may have to downsample them beyond
recognition...
Kenneth Benson
Pegasus Type, Inc.
www.pegtype.com

Video file size triples when transferred from camera into FCP

I recorded about 16gb of video in avchd on a canon hf10. When I import it into fcp6 using pro ress 422, the file sizes are enormous, about 100 gb from the original 16. How did this happen and how do I shrink my finished project it back down to fit on a dvd. I used compressor and Mpeg2 and got it down to 3.7gb but the quality was horrendous. I used compressor and h.264 and it took 24 hours then crashed before finishing.
using a canon vixia hf10, and FCP 6.
Thanks!

AVCHD is not a convenient format for editing so FCP converts it to ProRes which as you have discovered is around 50GB for an hour of footage.
ProRes enables it to be edited more easily and with better quality.
The size in gigabytes of your project is completely irrelevant . . . . it could be a terabyte with no problems.
All that matters is the length (time) of the project . . . . as long as it is no more than a couple of hours or so you will have no problems fitting it onto a DVD as iDVD or DVD Studio Pro etc. will compress it all down to around 4GB to fit.

Problem with CS2 edit file size

When I create a new version of a 3-4mb original, make a few simple modifications in CS2 and save back to Aperture the resulting version is almost 70mb. If I export this version from Ap back to my desktop and check file size it is back to near the original size. Yet, when I check the file size stored in my Ap library, it is 70mb. This will fill my hard drive in a hurry! Can someone help explain this ??

I did a little more experimenting by making external edits in PS on a 3.9mb JPG file in both Aperture and Lightroom to see what the resulting file sizes were. In both cases I left the master outside the library so that I could see file additions in both the application library and in the folder containing the originals and revisions. I looked into the file directories to determine real file sizes rather than relying on info from the applications. The increase in library file size was small in both apps. However, there was a significant difference in the revised file size between Aperture & Lightroom in the folders containing the originals. The best I could do in Aperture produced a 24.6mb psd revised file, which showed as a version in the App., in addition to the master. Lightroom gives the option to revise the master or revise a copy of the master when exporting. When revising a copy of the master, the result was a new jpg file approximately the same size as the master - 3.9mb - which appeared as a version. This is what I would like to be able to do in Aperture.
I have been using PS for several years for all my photo enhancements and have developed a pretty comfortable and effective routine. Having used Aperture for a couple of months now, I can see that most minor edits can be done more easily in Aperture, but the same is true of Lightwell. Although I would probably only use PS on less than 25% of my keeper photos, this increased storage requirement seems more trouble than the advantages of Aperture vs Lightroom are worth. Maybe Apple will make a change in the next revision that will effect this situation and make Aperture more desirable for JPG shooters.
Thanks Again,
Bob

Index file increase with no corresponding increase in block numbers or Pag file size

Hi All,
Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this issue and/or can help explain why it is happening....
I have a BSO cube fronted by a Hyperion Planning app, in version 11.1.2.1.000
The cube is in it's infancy, but already contains 24M blocks, with a PAG file size of 12GB. We expect this to grow fairly rapidly over the next 12 months or so.
After performing a simple Agg of aggregating sparse dimensions, the Index file sits at 1.6GB.
When I then perform a dense restructure, the index file reduces to 0.6GB. The PAG file remains around 12GB (a minor reduction of 0.4GB occurs). The number of blocks remains exactly the same.
If I then run the Agg script again, the number of blocks again remains exactly the same, the PAG file increases by about 0.4GB, but the index file size leaps back to 1.6GB.
If I then immediately re-run the Agg script, the # blocks still remains the same, the PAG file increases marginally (less than 0.1GB) and the Index remains exactly the same at 1.6GB.
Subsequent passes of the Agg script have the same effect - a slight increase in the PAG file only.
Performing another dense restructure reverts the Index file to 0.6GB (exactly the same number of bytes as before).
I have tried running the Aggs using parallel calcs, and also as in series (ie single thread) and get exactly the same results.
I figured there must be some kind of fragmentation happening on the Index, but can't think of a way to prove it. At all stages of the above test, the Average Clustering Ratio remains at 1.00, but I believe this just relates to the data, rather than the Index.
After a bit of research, it seems older versions of Essbase used to suffer from this Index 'leakage', but that it was fixed way before 11.1.2.1.
I also found the following thread which indicates that the Index tags may be duplicated during a calc to allow a read of the data during the calc;
http://www.network54.com/Forum/58296/thread/1038502076/1038565646/index+file+size+grows+with+same+data+-
However, even if all the Index tags are duplicated, I would expect the maximum growth of the Index file to be 100%, right? But I am getting more than 160% growth (1.6GB / 0.6GB).
And what I haven't mentioned is that I am only aggregating a subset of the database, as my Agg script fixes on only certain members of my non-aggregating sparse dimensions (ie only 1 Scenario & Version)
The Index file growth in itself is not a problem. But the knock-on effect is that calc times increase - if I run back-to-back Aggs as above, the 2nd Agg calc takes 20% longer than the 1st. And with the expected growth of the model, this will likely get much worse.
Anyone have any explanation as to what is occurring, and how to prevent it...?
Happy to add any other details that might help with troubleshooting, but thought I'd see if I get any bites first.
The only other thing I think worth pointing out at this stage is that we have made the cube Direct I/O for performance reasons. I don't have much prior exposure to Direct I/O so don't know whether this could be contributing to the problem.
Thanks for reading.

alan.d wrote:
The only other thing I think worth pointing out at this stage is that we have made the cube Direct I/O for performance reasons. I don't have much prior exposure to Direct I/O so don't know whether this could be contributing to the problem.
Thanks for reading.
I haven't tried Direct I/O for quite a while, but I never got it to work properly. Not exactly the same issue that you have, but it would spawn tons of .pag files in the past. You might try duplicating your cube, changing it to buffered I/O, and run the same processes and see if it does the same thing.
Sabrina

File size comparisons, InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5?

Hi, all.
It seems there was a trend for several major releases where each time Adobe released a new version of InDesign and InCopy, average file sizes grew by 20% or so from the old release to the new release, at least back in the older CS days. Has this trend continued, such that file sizes in CS4 are substantially larger than file sizes from CS3, and CS5 files are substantially larger than those from CS4?
Adobe, of course, wants to keep writing functionality that will keep the user community coming back to buy in to upgrades. The added functionality sometimes comes at a cost beyond the price tag. If file sizes are larger in a newer version, then page saves over a network or to a database are likely to be slower, and user productivity takes a hit while users are waiting for files to be saved.
Has anyone done any testing to build the "same" page in multiple versions of InDesign to understand what the effect is on the file sizes? I'm specifically interested in the file sizes between InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5. To be meaningful, the test page would have to be at least moderately complex, with a couple of photos, multiple text elements and so forth. By "same," the page wouldn't take advantage of new functionality in newer versions but would be saved as a native page of the current version, though the file sizes may be bloated by the new functionality like it or not.
If you've done any testing along these lines, I'd like to hear more about it.
Thanks.
Mark

The overall structure of ID's files have been exactly the same for -- as far as I can see back -- CS. No change at all, in there.
There have been significant additions to the 'global' spaces; stuff like InCopy user data, table styles, object styles, and cross references. Each of these add a major chunk of data to each file, whether you use it or not, plus a few bytes per object (again, whether you use them or not -- ID also needs to know where you did not use them, that's why). I think these might be the main source of 'global' file size increase (a single object style in one of my files, for example, eats up a healthy chunk of 11,482 bytes).
For the rest, all new stuff like 'span columns' is a handful of bytes per paragraph style. Tracking changes may very well double the size of text runs -- but 1 character takes up 1 byte of storage (plus perhaps some overhead of indicating its 'tracking' status). Any single measurement unit always uses 8 bytes at least (for example, the left inset for a column span -- even if it's not used, or set to 0pt).
I think we're talking about a couple of K's here (oh -- perhaps a max of a hundred or so), in a file format that has been designed around the concept of "disk pages", each 4K big, meaning that sometimes adding one single character to a text box increases the file size by 4 K.
Your idea of comparing the size of a file created in CS3 against the same saved as CS4 and as CS5 is certainly feasible -- I might try it some time, just to confirm it's purely the extra 'new objects' data that accounts for the size increase and to confirm my guesstimates of the number of Ks involved.

Incredibly strange file size discrepancy only appears in image files (jpg, gif, png)!

I'm creating a bunch of banners for google ads, yahoo ads, ...etc in Photoshop on my Mac OS!
The .gif files of these banners appear to TRIPLE in size when on the MAC (>150KB), but when transferred to windows; the real file size shows correctly! (<50KB)
It is not a result of the base2 vs base10 discrepancy since the difference in size is simply too big, and it only happens with files created on Photoshop on my Mac.
The reason I know that windows is showing the correct size while my Mac OS is displaying the wrong size, is that the file gets approved by google and yahoo ads, even though Mac OS shows that it surpasses the size limit (50KB) three times over!
This isn't an isolated incident either, all image files created in Photoshop on the MAC continue this weird behaviour! However, files downloaded from the net appear to be consistent on both operating systems!
One example is the attached screenshot:
Explanation, please??

Geez, sorry I offended you Mr. Jobs (incarnate)!
You came in here with a three ton chip on your shoulders. Did you really expect sunshine and puppies in return?
No, I expected useful help, and I got it from Jeffrey Jones. Thanks again Jeffrey!
I mean, when you move or upload it, it loses this data association anyways!
To a drive which doesn't support Apple's AB tree structure (NTFS, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), yes. To another HFS+ drive, no.
What about uploading the file to the cloud?? Does it lose this association or not?? And does anyone really care about the data in the Resource fork?
This "Resource Fork" means nothing to the file owner, only to the OS and the Drive. Therefore, it shouldn't be added to the total. Period. Because its not part of the file, its part of Apple's tree structure! This is really a simple concept, not sure why you are bending over backwords to defend a clearly stupid oversight from apple!
There's no reason to force me to use the command line to get the real file size of a GIF! There's just no excuse for that!
If an OS is saying it is fetching file size information for a single file, it should do exactly that! Not add hidden Resource Forks that are part of the OS's internal workings
OS X is fetching the file size. It's file size, not the way a different OS would report it.
There is no such thing as it's file size. A file size is a file size, accross all platforms, on the cloud, wherever!
A GIF file should have the same file size whether its on windows, linux, unix, darwin, freeBSD, or anything else. The only time its weight should vary is in outer space!
That is why I'm surprised that they are breaking simple UI Design rules.
The User Interface has nothing to do with the file structure of a drive.
I don't care about the structure of the drive!! Neither should you, neither should the average user!
A good UI should NOT concern the user with this! The average user doesn't care about these Resource Forks, and will never try to view them, therefore, there is no logical reason to add up their file sizes to the total size of each file, and then to make things worse, hide that fact! That only creates confusion, and it makes it so much harder for a designer like myself to view the REAL file sizes of my image files! Now, whenever I'm on my MAC, I will have to run command line scripts to be able to see if my GIF files (that I work on EVERYDAY) meet the file size quota, because Mac OS adds up hidden files that I have no use for and gives me the WRONG file size!
Let's say this again: when you select a file and click get info, you should get the info for the file you selcted. Nothing more, nothing less! I don't care if the file structure creates an entire colony of hidden files, they should be completely hidden to me, and if not, the Get Info dialog box should at least give me two sizes, one is the REAL file size, and the other is the added up file size for the Resource Fork as well (although I can't think of any good reason why it should add up the Resource Fork size anyways)!
do you think it is at all logical, that when you select 300 or so files, and click Get Info, that it open 300 windows at once each showing separate information for each file? Or does it make a lot more sense, intuitively, to get the total tally of all the files selected added up, without having to hold down shortcut keys when clicking them to do so?
Yes, it is logical because that's what you, the user, told the OS to do. You wanted the Get Info data on 300 individual items. I don't know about you, but I avoid the menu bar as much as possible (your reference to avoiding shortcut keys). Command+I will always give you singular Get Info dialogue boxes.
No, that's not what I told the OS to do. I selected 300 files cumulatively, therefore, I should get the cumulative info for all the selected files. That's just common sense. Every other OS seems to get this!
And I'm hard pressed to find anyone who has found a use for having 300 get info boxes open at the same time. Therefore, that shouldn't be the default.
Will you start defending apple's decision to stick with the one button mouse for all these years depriving us from the all important context menu as well?? There was absolutely no good reason to do that, just as there is absolutely no good reason to do this!

File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so here goes. The specific application (PS) is irrelevant, I think. This is about why an app shows one file size & the Finder shows a different file size. In this case, it's a huge difference, due to the file being an image.
I imported into PS CS, from a CD, an original image, which the Finder shows as 269.4 MB. The file format is TIFF, and the bit-depth is 16, not 8. The Finder shows it as a "TIFF Document." Now. I did a Save As and edited that as a master image file. So, I have two files: the original and the master.
I substantially cropped (deleted) pixels in the master file. So, at the same 16-bit depth, the master file should be smaller in size than the original. Right? However, the Finder shows the file to be 433.6 MB in size! Photoshop shows the file to be a more realistic 185.8 MB in size. Why is the Finder showing such a huge file size? Why is the Finder storing 247.8 MB more than I need? The Finder shows this file as an "Adobe Photoshop TIFF file," so there has been a change in format. The file is flattened; no layers, etc., are involved.
One clue could be that the Finder is storing the larger file size to accommodate Photoshop. If one multiplies 185.8 MB by 3, the result is close to the 433.6 MB figure. The 3 stands for the three color channels (red, green, blue) of each pixel (data element) in the image.
The original image, however, is stored correctly by the Finder. Photoshop and the Finder agree on the 269.4 MB file size. If the above scenario were true, the Finder would be storing the original file at three times the size as shown in Photoshop. In other words, there would be consistency in what the Finder is doing.
I suppose I could just ignore the discrepancy, but I have hundreds of images to process, and I don't want to have to go into PS every time to get a true reading of file sizes. The Finder should be accurate in doing that.
I may be in the wrong forum re: Photoshop, but here I think I can find some expertise re: the Finder, since the Finder's storing procedures are in question, to my mind. It's definitely an app/OS interface problem, as I see it. Simply, I edit a file downward in data, save it, yet the Finder saves it at a larger size.

...do you think a lot of cloning & healing brush might have added to the file size, even though I cropped the image?
Yes, depending on your History settings. The more you work on an image, the more history it accumulates. The more different states and sanpshots you save in the History palette, the bigger the file gets as you work on it, because you're storing (within the file) complete information about the file's state before and after every individual change you make to it. What I don't recall is whether that all gets saved to the file in a Save As, or whether the history is flushed each time the file is Saved.
I should warn you that I am by NO stretch of the imagination a PS expert. I was still using PS 5.0.2 until last February, when I upgraded to CS2 (knowing it will be years before I have enough hardware horsepower to run CS3). I'm a rank beginner with CS2, and if someone else wants to jump in here and point out that I'm all wrong, it will be no surprise to me. And because I never used CS, I don't know whether what I'm describing in CS2 is even relevant here.

Problem exporting image to specific file size

I've had some professional images shot and I can see from the file size in Aperture that they range from 13 - 73 mb. I need to submit them as 72dpi and 300dpi files and they must be between 1 & 3 mb in size.
I'm having no problems in exporting them at the correct dpi but the file sizes come out between 451kb and 1.8kb: 3 of the 6 images are too small, ie under 1mb.
What I'm doing is 'export version', then choosing the preset option of 'jpeg original size', editing it to the dpi I want, setting the image quality at a max of 12.
How can I get these file sizes to be bigger?
Thanks, and please help me quickly because I've a submission deadline approaching!

Well that's interesting Ernie. I did as you said, but also exported an image while I had the settings at 4288 x 4288 pixels. The resultant file size at that setting is 1.4MB. The file size when I went back to 'original size' is 795KB, exactly the same as before.
So I thought - if I can go above original size in that way, then can I alter the % to be over 100? I tried at 150%, which it accepted, and I've now got a file size of 1.3MB.
So I guess I've got what I wanted - not that I really understand it, because 'original size' clearly isn't original size at all!
Sorry Leonie - I didn't answer your question - they haven't given me a specification for pixel size as in 4288 x 4288: only 300 & 72dpi, a file size of 1-3MB, and a they must be JPGs.
And thanks for your help Frank - I've tried starting out with JPGs and with TIFFs as the photographer supplied me with both. I'd cropped some of the images but not others. I appreciate you offer of having a go with my images, but I think that - as I can go to over 100% - I've got it sorted now! Just hope there's no deterioration in image quality.
Many thanks everyone!

Max file size

What (if any) is the max file size FMLE can make to serve from FMS? Do the profiles have any relation?
Thanks in advance
Matthew

I think you misunderstand the concept of streaming. FMS isn't reading from a file when it streams your video, it reads from your stream. This is dynamic - frames are pushed up to the FMS constantly. As such there is no "size" limitation per se. As long as you are streaming from FLME to the FMS the FMS will stream your data to people that connect to it.
However if you plan to create a file and upload that to the FMS for video-on-demand (i.e. not a "live" stream) that may be a different story. Not sure if there is a size limitation there.

File size in back up is different from on laptop....

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for