File Size Madness

Post Author: RPatel11
CA Forum: Publishing
I'm new to BO and I am experiencing some significant problems with file size issues:
I'm not sure how this has been addressed but any assistance would be very appreciated.
First we are using flat files and excel files as our data providers. We are using BO 6.5.
We work in reports fine and have reports at about 300kb. However randomly and unexpectedly our file size will instantly go to 10mb, 400mb...and for no apparent reason. We didn't do anything or change anything within the report itself. We delete all the charts, graphs, etc...in the document and it still maintains a large file size. We end up having to recreate all the reports to get the size back to 300kb, but then it shoots right back up a few days later.
Why does this happen?
What can we do to prevent this from happening?
Is there a solution?
Thanks,
Rasesh Patel
Customer Systems Coordinator

You need to make use of Stories. There is a complete tutorial here;
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/stories_dvdspstone.html

Similar Messages

I need to reduce the size of several pdf files before transferring them onto a research database. Each file is made up of 100 images (pages of diaries)

I need to reduce the size of several pdf files before transferring them onto a research database. Each file is made up of 100 images (pages of diaries) & is up to 1.36 GB in size. I have tried reducing file size in preview but the images are unreadable. Any ideas?

WHen I want to reduce the file size, I either use "Optimize Scanned PDF", or more often use "Reduce File Size". Both are on the Document menu. The Reduce File Size selection has some limited customization that is used, when selected.

A simple and free way of reducing PDF file size using Preview

Note: this is a copy and update of a 5 year old discussion in the Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard discussions which you can find here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/6109398#6109398
This is a simple and free solution I found to reduce the file size of PDFs in OS X, without the high cost and awful UI of Acrobat Pro, and with acceptable quality. I still use it every day, although I have Acrobat Pro as part of Adove Creative Cloud subscription.
Since quite a few people have found it useful and keep asking questions about the download location and destination of the filters, which have changed since 2007, I decided to write this update, and put it in this more current forum.
Here is how to install it:
Download the filters here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41548940/PDF%20compression%20filters%20%28Un zip%20and%20put%20in%20your%20Library%20folder%29.zip
Unzip the downloaded file and copy the filters in the appropriate location (see below).
Here is the appropriate location for the filters:
This assumes that your startup disk's name is "Macintosh HD". If it is different, just replace "Macintosh HD" with the name of your startup disk.
If you are running Lion or Mountain Lion (OS X 10.7.x or 10.8.x) then you should put the downloaded filters in "Macintosh HD/Library/PDF Services". This folder should already exist and contain files. Once you put the downloaded filters there, you should have for example one file with the following path:
"Macintosh HD/Library/PDF Services/Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION.qfilter"
If you are running an earlier vesion of OS X (10.6.x or earlier), then you should put the downloaded filters in "Macintosh HD/Library/Filters" and you should have for example one file with the following path:
"Macintosh HD/Library/Filters/Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION.qfilter"
Here is how to use it:
Open a PDF file using Apple's Preview app,
Choose Export (or Save As if you have on older version of Mac OS X) in the File menu,
Choose PDF as a format
In the "Quartz Filter" drop-down menu, choose a filter "Reduce to xxx dpi yyy quality"; "Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION" is a good trade-off between quality and file size
Here is how it works:
These are Quartz filters made with Apple Colorsinc Utility.
They do two things:
downsample images contained in a PDF to a target density such as 150 dpi,
enable JPEG compression for those images with a low or medium setting.
Which files does it work with?
It works with most PDF files. However:
It will generally work very well on unoptimized files such as scans made with the OS X scanning utility or PDFs produced via OS X printing dialog.
It will not further compress well-optimized (comrpessed) files and might create bigger files than the originals,
For some files it will create larger files than the originals. This can happen in particular when a PDF file contains other optomizations than image compression. There also seems to be a bug (reported to Apple) where in certain circumstances images in the target PDF are not JPEG compressed.
What to do if it does not work for a file (target PDF is too big or even larger than the original PDF)?
First,a good news: since you used a Save As or Export command, the original PDF is untouched.
You can try another filter for a smaller size at the expense of quality.
The year being 2013, it is now quite easy to send large files through the internet using Dropbox, yousendit.com, wetransfer.com etc. and you can use these services to send your original PDF file.
There are other ways of reducing the size of a PDF file, such as apps in the Mac App store, or online services such as the free and simple http://smallpdf.com
What else?
Feel free to use/distribute/package in any way you like.

Thanks ioscar.
The original link should be back online soon.
I believe this is a Dropbox error about the traffic generated by my Dropbox shared links.
I use Dropbox mainly for my business and I am pretty upset by this situation.
Since the filters themsemves are about 5KB, I doubt they are the cause for this Dropbox misbehavior!
Anyway, I submitted a support ticket to Dropbox, and hope everything will be back to normal very soon.
In the meantime, if you get the same error as ioscar when trying to download them, you can use the link in the blog posting he mentions.
This is out of topic, but for those interested, here is my understanding of what happened with Dropbox.
I did a few tests yesterday with large (up to 4GB) files and Dropbox shared links, trying to find the best way to send a 3 hour recording from French TV - French version of The Voice- to a friend's 5 year old son currently on vacation in Florida, and without access to French live or catch up TV services. One nice thing I found is that you can directly send the Dropbox download URL (the one from the Download button on the shared link page) to an AppleTV using AirFlick and it works well even for files with a large bitrate (except of course for the Dropbox maximum bandwidth per day limit!). Sadly, my Dropbox shared links were disabled before I could send anything to my friend.
I may have used a significant amount of bandwidth but nowhere near the 200GB/day limit of my Dropbox Pro account.
I see 2 possible reasons to Dropbox freaking out:
- My Dropbox Pro account is wronngly identified as a free account by Dropbox. Free Dropbox accounts have a 20GB/day limit, and it is possible that I reached this limit with my testing, I have a fast 200Mb/s internet access.
- Or Dropbox miscalculates used bandwidth, counting the total size of the file for every download begun, and I started a lot of downloads, and skipped to the end of the video a lot of times on my Apple TV.

File size of .swf files exported from Indesign CS5

I have made a basic file (728 x 90 px) in Indesign, which is the size of banner ads we produce. I have not put on any effect or animation yet. When I export it as a swf file, the file size is 139kb. This is way too large for any banner advertising on websites where the highest is normally 100px and the smallest is 30kb.
I have tried exporting at a lower resolution, but it has no effect on the file size, rendering this useless as a flash export option for me.
Is there something I'm missing or is Indesign just not the right tool for flash banner ads.
Thanks

Mr Met
{swf file that's 13MB. What are your images, 200MB each?}
As I said, I resampled the images to be 500px wide so each PShop image is about 1.4mb (single layer). There are 12 images used.
Here it is if you care to see i t- 11mb so it will take time to load
http://wgdesigngroup.com/10/elaine/elaine.html
Jongware
{The Right Tool for the Right Job ...}
No doubt you are a 100% right here.
But I think it is a bit disingenious to blame the InDesign user for the feature. It would be like Abobe putting Drop Shadows and transparences into ID and then saying you should use PhotoShop to for that feature!
Brian

Animated GIF--Quality and File Size

I'm having a hard time getting a quality image and a decent file size.
Even if I save animated GIFs and open with PE an try to resave them, the motion is choppy and the file size is more than double the original.
For example, the following image is less than 10K and plays quite smoothely, but no way can I duplicate such a simple graphic under 10K:
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/style_images/Borderli-546/ad_banner.gif
It also seems that others can control the duration of frames individually...
Most of my GIFs end up around 300K, which will not be accepted. A compromise of poor quality will also not be considered.
What can I do?
I've tried lowering Dither and colors, but the results are poor. My graphics will not be used if they are so large or of poor quality.
Here is a couple that I made:
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/uploads/post-176-1135532612.gif
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/uploads/post-176-1135723565.gif
PSE3, WinXP Pro

Cuc
I am not an animation expert, but I copied two of your examples. On the example you say is under 10K, there are about 35 layers. On your example there are about 65 layers. I'm wondering if reducing the number of layers would get you what you want.
As for controlling duration of frames, I assume you want Frame 1 to be 0.5 second, Frame 2 to be 1 second etc. I think PSE puts a uniform time between frames. This can be adjusted, but it is adjusted all frames. One workaround I've seen is to copy a layer. So if the timing interval is 0.5 seconds, you would have the same image show for 0.5 seconds X 2 = 1 second.
This is about all I know on animated GIFS.

How do I decrease the file size of my After Effects video without losing the quality?

I made a video that was 7 minutes and 11 seconds long for my brothers wedding. The quality is really good but the file size is 1.52 GB and I would rather have that be in the megabytes so that I can send it to family members. It does not have to be so low that I can send it in an email but just not so big to where I can't burn it to a disc or place on a flash drive. I realize that I have not provided much information but I don't know what you will need to help me with this problem. If you would please tell me what information you need below then I will happily provide it for you.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/684381?tstart=0 and please do a search on H.264 and WMV encoding and recommended settings - here on this forum and on the web in general. This question has been asked to death and answered equally as often. Even a lazy search will turn up hundreds of usable answers.
Mylenium

Exporting a book to pdf - any way to reduce the file size?

Hi,
So I have made a book using iPhoto and would like to send a pdf copy of it to another person who will fill in the texts. I am able to save the book as pdf via the print menu but the resulting file is over 300 mb in size (the book has only 20 pages)! On the one hand i like the fact that iPhoto is not downsampling my photos but it's a bit difficult trying to send a 300+ mb file over email Is there any way to create a pdf with the images compressed so i could send it as an attachment?

http://beyondteck.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-to-reduce-pdf-file-sizes-on-mac.html
Google is your friend.
Regards
TD

Preview.app increases PDF file size.

When making changes to a PDF (in my case, creating annotations), Preview.app will increase the file size of a PDF if that PDF was run through Acrobat Pro's "Reduce File Size" process. For example, I have a PDF that I created using a Book2Net book scanner. I then used Acrobat Pro 10 to OCR the file, then ran Reduce File size which shrank the file size from almost 1.6gb down to about 62mb. If I use Preview.app to make an annotation and then save the file, Preview.app will inflate the file back up to 1.6gb.
An earlier thread (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1478588?start=0&tstart=0) also discusses a similar issue. I'm not sure if those folks were also working with PDFs that were reduced in size by Acrobat Pro or not.
Anyone else have this issue?
10.6.8 on a MacBook Pro.

That is not normal. same action with acrobat and skim do not do this. Changing file size from 170mb to 780mb (my case) should not be expected.
Preview re-formats the file (which takes a while the first "save"). It may even make scrolling and searching for text faster, but is not desirable all the time.
There is NO explanation from Apple in help or online. Keeping things simple is one thing, having unexpected and unexplained behavior is another.
Last preview update made it pretty much useless for annotations anyways.
Choosing "text" annotation used to allow for clicking anywhere on the pdf and start typing. Now, it automatically creates a text box at the center of page that has to be the dragged (and make sure not dragging other annotations with it). click T multiple times, multiple text boxes on top of each other.
I never thought I would look at Windows users with jealousy. What a bad job they are doing.

Preview increases pdf file size when saving

When I save a PDF journal article using Preview, it often increases the file size by 2x - 4x, regardless of whether I have added annotations. In the attached image, you can see I downloaded a journal article (2.3 MB), opened it in Preview, duplicated and saved it and the resulting copied file was 6.1 MB.
This is a problem because I it signifiantly increases the size of my synced reference library. It is worse with larger files (25 MB eBooks that increase to 80 MB).
Can anyone help me find a way to annotate a journal article and preserve the original file size? I have tried Adobe Reader (awful and buggy interface, but preserves the original size!), and several other PDF apps (e.g. Skim) seem to rely on Apple's PDF engine where the file results in a larger size as well. Using Quartz filters to reduce file size within Preview is not effective. I'm happy to purchase a program if it works well.

I have also experienced this issue. My PDF file of 300MB increased to over 900MB when I simply put one straight line annotation onto it. Effectively this made the PDF unusable since it is now very slow to open and it is too large to transfer onto my iPad. I've experienced this multiple times with a variety of PDF files, and so now simply avoid changing them in any way in Preview. I have written to Apple via apple.com/feedback and have talked to Apple store 'Geniuses' about this. Apparently it is a known issue, but there was no promise of a resolution. I love the way Preview opens quickly and displays files and also allows beautiful, smooth scrolling of PDFs. It's a pity that there's this enormous problem with annotating. If anyone knows of a solution, it would be great to hear. I've tried other PDF programmes such as Adobe for Mac, but wasn't too impressed.

Reducing PDF File size

I am trying to drop the size of a PDF Newsletter that I intend to E-mail, and have tried all the settings available, but this is not dropping it enough! Bicubic downsampling is set to 150 for images above 200, and anything more than this results in a big loss in image quality. Would anyone have any ideas how to get around this?

You do not say how you made the change on Mac, what software? Did you try Color Synch Utility-->reduce file size.
Found in your Utilities Folder.
MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.6), 2.4GHz IntelCore i5 320 HD 8GB RAM

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

Project File Size Nearly Doubled?

Hi, I've been exporting video for a good year and a half in Premiere Elements 11 using the following method.
Publish & Share -> Computer -> MPEG -> Presets HD 720p 30
My file size has normally been quite reasonable every time I exported a video.
However, today after a good 3-4month Hiatus from making videos, I created another video (very similar to my previous made ones) and tried to export it. I realized that the file size is about double that of all of my other videos around the same length.
I also went back to an old saved project that I did and it's also showing a doubled file size (2g now), despite the previous file that was exported from this project saying 1.3gb.
I don't recall editing anything to the bitrate at all either so I am quite confused as to what is going on.
Can anyone help me?
Much thanks in advance,
Shou

Hi A.T. Romano,
Yes, I am looking at an older project to see if it was just the new video I was using in my newer project that was increasing the size. It seems this is not the case.
a. I'm not sure where to locate the bitrate of all of the video on the time line. If you are talking about the original video and not the edited versions, the properties state that the bit rate for each video is about 17200kbps. I do have photos as well as video on the timeline.
Frame Size: 1920x1080
Frame Rate: 29.97
File Size: 2.1gb
b. No I am not customizing the preset at all.
c. File Size: 2043.39 Duration: 17Min 49sec
d. I am finding the export dialog and the newly exported file are one in the same. Initially I was reading the exported file size by looking at the properties of the file.
Sure thing!
And thank you for your help!
Shou

How do you reduce file size of a PDF if Save As doesnt work?

I have been trying to reduce the size of a PDF, using the Save As > Optimized PDF method.
I have also tried Save As > Reduced Size PDF.
This is on a file made up of 20 pages of full page Jpegs. (These were generated by the script in Photoshop that generates Jpeg files from Layer Comps within the document.)
If I use Reduced Size PDF, I get a greatly reduced file size but the image quality suffers greatly. (Lots of artifacts and blurryness)
There are no options to choose the level of compression I want.
If I use Optimized PDF method, I cant seem to reduce the file size no matter what I set the Jpeg compression to.
Is there some way to cut the size of the file down but not lose so much image quality?
Any suggestions?

Part of the problem here is that the files that are produced when I run the script to output files from layer comps are very big.
If I "save for web" for each layer comp, I wind up with way smaller Jpegs. Thus a much smaller PDF.
So the question is: Can you make the script, Layer Comps to Files, create smaller more optimized Jpegs? (Like you get when you save for web)

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.

Lightroom Keeping Original File Size on JPEG Export

In Photoshop Light room, when I make edits to some JPEG files in a library and leave some unedited, I want to then export the JPEG files, keeping their original file sizes. The default quality setting is 60%, but this reduces the file sizes.
How do I keep the original file sizes?
Thx.
Tony.

> The default quality setting is 60%, but this reduces the file sizes. How do I keep the original file sizes?
All of the Export Presets can be edited and the new settings made to be default. Alternatively you can set up your own, new, presets to your own specification.

File Size Madness

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for