File Size Question: Browser vs. MediaManager vs. Finder

Not an earth-shattering issue, but am just curious as to why the Browser, MM, and the Finder each offer different opinions as to the size of a given media file (or group of files).
I've just finished capturing a couple of hours of HDV footage from a friend's Sony cam (model HDR-HC7). Used Capture Now with the pref to create new media files at any TC break. (Will later do selective shot-by-shot logging and transcoding into ProRes422, so this B-cam material can be easily combined with AVCHD-originated footage which is being ProRes'd on ingest. For now just had to get it all on disk, since my friend needs his camera back!)
Anyway, everything went smoothly, but to use one file as an example, I happened to notice that in FCP7's "Size" Browser column, it's 78.2 MB; whereas MediaManager sees it as 77.1 MB; yet the Finder shows it as 82 MB.
All the other captured files show a similar variation. Everything's in the same ballpark, of course -- and these days what's a few MBs between friends? -- but the differences total a couple of GBs by the end of day; still not a big deal in the grand scheme, just more of a variation than I would have predicted.
So -- does anyone happen to know why this is the case? Do the Browser, MM, and the Finder each have different ways of evaluating how much space a particular media file is actually occupying, or are they each measuring subtly different things?
Like I said -- just curious.
Thanks,
John B.
Toronto

+Is there a particular reason why it makes sense for the Browser to use one way, and the Finder to use the other?+
Most likely it is down to which particular call is used by the programer to ascertain file size and therefore the way that file size data is returned to the app. Don't forget that the FCP's basic code is pretty darn old now and predates current best practices for file size reporting.
+And why, staying with the above example, does the Media Manager come up with its own unique measurement altogether, different from BOTH of the others (or is that just part of its charm)?+
Weird huh? And here's the bit you won't like ... I don't see the same discrepancy. On my system Media Manager and the Browser seem to report file sizes consistently.
+Also -- am I correct in noticing that under Snow Leopard, Disk Utility has switched from one measurement scheme to the other? (DU suddenly seems to be seeing my 500GB drives as having a single-volume partition of -- gasp -- 500GB! Who would've thought?)+
Yup, its a brave new world.

Similar Messages

  • Upload file size in browser side

    Is there a way to detect the size of the attached file in the browser side, before to send this file to a servlet? If yes, how to?

    Yes u can do that pls check this and let me know...
    did it serve the purpose
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <SCRIPT>
    function getImageDimension (imgURL, loadHandler) {
    var img = new Image();
    img.onload = loadHandler;
    if (document.layers
    && location.protocol.toLowerCase() != 'file:'
    && navigator.javaEnabled())
    netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege(
    'UniversalFileRead'
    img.src = imgURL;
    function getFileSize (fileName) {
    if (document.layers) {
    if (navigator.javaEnabled()) {
              alert('inside');
    var file = new java.io.File(fileName);
    if (location.protocol.toLowerCase() != 'file:')
    netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege(
    'UniversalFileRead'
    return file.length();
    else return -1;
    else if (document.all) {
    window.oldOnError = window.onerror;
    window.onerror = function (err) {
    if (err.indexOf('utomation') != -1) {
    alert('file access not possible');
    return true;
    else
    return false;
    var fso = new ActiveXObject('Scripting.FileSystemObject');
    var file = fso.GetFile(fileName);
    window.onerror = window.oldOnError;
    return file.Size;
    function showImageDimensions () {
    alert(this.width + 'x' + this.height);
    </SCRIPT>
    <SCRIPT>
    function checkImageDimensions (fileName) {
    var imgURL = 'file:///' + fileName;
    getImageDimension(imgURL, showImageDimensions);
    </SCRIPT>
    </HEAD>
    <BODY>
    <FORM NAME="formName">
    <INPUT TYPE="file" NAME="fileName">
    <BR>
    <INPUT TYPE="button" VALUE="check file size"
    ONCLICK="alert(getFileSize(this.form.fileName.value))"
    >
    <BR>
    <INPUT TYPE="button" VALUE="check image dimensions"
    ONCLICK="checkImageDimensions(this.form.fileName.value)"
    >
    </FORM>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>
    --------------------------------

  • File size questions

    new to Apple MAC and iPhoto...so....I shot my new camera in jpeg, files are roughly 20mb...then I shot in RAW and after editing, the saved jpegs are ~ 5-10mb and up to 15mb....what happens to make this discrepency? how could my RAW converted jpegs be ~ 1/3 the size of straight out of camera jpegs?
    another question...iPhoto is 1.7 gb, my iPhoto Library size it 37gb, but my pictures in iPhoto total 17gb.....is the discrepecy due to stuff like Slideshows I created? Faces just is referring the files right, not making duplicate files?...having trouble wrappping my head around stuff I''m seeing that doesn't add up...
    thanks

    It's all a bit more complex that that. There is no correlation between file size and the quality of a shot. A well exposed shot of 2 or 3 mb will print just as well as a well exposed shot of 25mb. There is no difference in what gets printed. A poorly exposed shot of 25mb will print like garbage.
    It gets worse, we used to suggest a rule of thumb that printing at 300dpi was a reasonable giude to printing quality. Not any more. Printers and cameras have improved, iPhoto books are uploaded at something akin to 150 dpi.
    Again, a 3 mb jpeg will print exactly as well as a 30 mb tiff.
    Remember, the internet is full of high quality images that weigh in at a lot less than 500kb.
    Where file size comes into play is when you're using destructive editing on a lossy format, like Jpeg, and, as I said above, that doesn't come into play in a non-destructive editing system like iPhoto.
    The output from the export will - depending on the settings you use - either be smaller or larger than the jepg from a camera. It means very little - unless you're going to go an an edited destructively.

  • Place .jpg from PS CS3 to IllusCS3-File size question

    Newbie here- Good Morning
    I am creating a doc in Illustrator that will ultimately be saved as a pdf for online viewing.  In PS, I am increasing the images ppi from 72 to 300 as well as decreasing it's size, saving it at medium quality jpg and I get a file size around 175k(perfect for me).  When I place the image in Illustrator and save the file, I get an overall document file size increase of over 800k.
    Is there any way to avoid this?
    Thanks!

    It sounds as if you are embedding the image rather than linking it.
    Either drag the image from the Finder or Bridge or else File-Place and check Link.
    (If you drag from the Finder with Shift held down it will be embedded.)
    There's usually no need to embed images unless you're prepraring HiRes pdf files for print, in which case it's best to leave the embedding until just before you save as pdf. Failure to embed images in print files may result in white horizontal lines cutting through the images.

  • File SIze Question

    Have a Tiff file open. Image box at the bottom gives 59M/82M and the get info in the Finder tells me the file size is 120M. Which of these is the actual size of the file?
    Thanks
    Geoff

    The Finder shows you how much disk space is being used by the file, including any round-off of sectors.
    Photoshop shows you the size of the file in RAM.
    It's all explained in the Help files.

  • Linked Smart Objects - File Size Question

    Hey guys,
    first time using linked smart objects and I was pretty excited about it at first. I have a large photoshop file with 1920x1080 image assets. The file size is about 1GB and everytime I make a minor change the entire file has to be re-uploaded to my Dropbox.
    So I figured that I could make all these image assets linked smart objects so that I can keep the master file down in file size since most of the actual assets don't change. However, even the PSD that contains nothing by linked smart layer objects is already 400MB large. And that's in addition to the external PSD's it is now linking to.
    Even if I duplicate a linked smart layer object in this PSD file it increased the file size by an additional 10MB per duplicate. Is this supposed to happen? Why does it take so much space to just link to external objects? I was super excited about using linked smart layer objects but this doesn't look like it would be helping much to decrease file size.
    Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
    Thanks,
    Philipp

    Hey Chris,
    thanks again! I guess I just had different expectations. In my mind I was going to see a parent file around 10MB or something with all of the content being dynamically loaded from the linked smart objects.
    Maybe that could be a feature requests for future versions.

  • IMovie music rights and file size questions

    1. I'm producing a movie of videos and still photos from a recent vacation strictly for personal family use, not commercial. Is there any violation at all of copyrights if I add songs or loops from a commercial artists music CD? Also, I'm assuming no rights problem with using in my home movie the Garage Band loops that came with my iLife'06.
    2. I'm wondering about the file size of my movie so far. It is 26 minutes long and 6.5 GB! I'm guessing I'll end up with about 40 minutes. What is the compression procedure so I can later record the movie to a typical 4.9 GB DVD disc? BTW I'm using an external LaCie burner to get around problems with the 2X DVD burner in my 2002 G4 Quicksilver.
    Many thanks in advance.
    Raymon

    The "personal use" issue (in the U.S. anyway) was resolved in the users favor when the first VHS recorders started shipping.
    There are also millions of files that are "royalty free" that be used in any fashion.
    Don't worry about the file size of your iMovie project. iDVD only uses the "time" (up to 2 hours) and will handle the compression automatically.

  • Importing VHS into Imovie - file size question

    Hi,
    The novice is back so bear with me please.
    I'm using the Canopus ADVC-55 to import a 2 hour VHS into imovie so that I can convert it to DVD in iDVD. However, the file size is so massive that its eating up my hard drive. If I get an external hard drive, can I move the imovie project I'm working on to the external drive and will I still be able to use the imovie application even if the actual application is on the main hard drive? I just figure because of file limitations when working with digital files on my hard drive, it might be more practical to get a 200gig external but I want to make sure that I can still use the imovie application from it.
    Thanks.

    Leslie,
    If you do get an external drive, make sure it's formatted Mac OS Extended or it may not work properly with iMovie.
    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93296
    Matt

  • RAW Conversion to JPG file size question

    I'm fairly new to Lightroom and have noticed when I convert from RAW to JPG my approx. 8MB RAW files become approximately 2-3MB JPG files. I have the program set to convert to JPG at the highest possible quality. I've had clients ask about the file size and would like to be able to explain this to them in simple terms but I first need to understand why this is the case myself! When I used a different processing program the converted files were only slightly smaller than the originals. Please explain!
    Thanks!

    It depends on the quality settings you use. JPEG files have I think 12 quality settings, with 12 being pretty big, and 8-10 being reasonable compromises.
    This is lossy compression, so data is thrown away. The quality setting determines how much info is thrown away.
    Only thing you can really do is export at a few quality settings and compare them, to see if YOU can see the difference.
    For me, I don't really care about minimizing file size so I always choose highest quality.

  • Workflow, capturing, and file sizes question

    I currently use FCE strictly for DV work, but need to upgrade to either FCE HD or FCP for use with HDV.
    My workflow now consists of capturing to a scratch disk, then archiving the captured DV file to an external HD for backup purposes and storing the original tape in a safe location.
    With FCE HD, can I similarly archive the captured HDV file prior to transcoding to AIC? Or, must I archive the much larger transcoded file? I would perfer to archive the smaller file, and then retranscode it if necessary to work on the project again at a later date (similarly to how I can now just copy the original captured DV file back and reopen the project).
    Thanks,
    Randy

    Tom,
    Thanks for the info. I know that FCE HD cannot EDIT HDV natively, but since the transcoding is not done in real time during capture, I wondered if the captured HDV data was stored in a temporary file until transcoded (and if the temporary file could be archived).
    Unless FCE HD can export to MPEG-2 with minimal loss, it sounds like I would need to archive the AIC file, or use FCP to edit native HDV and export.
    - Randy

  • Question about RAW to JPG file sizes

    Hello all, I have a question/concern in reference to file size changes when converting from RAW to JPG formats in PSE6. I've recently purchased a CANON 50D, and have started shooting in RAW format (actually RAW2+JPG). I have the CAMERA RAW 5.2 plugin and my workflow process is something akin to this:
    1. Separate all RAW and JPG images into their respective folders.
    2. Open the RAW folder in BRIDGE, and then open up a CR2 file. CR2 file is approx 15MB at this point, as reported in Finder.
    3. Perform various corrections in ACR52 to the file, then do as SAVE AS to a DNG file.
    4. Next step is to OPEN IMAGE, bringing it up in PSE6.
    5. Make any necessary corrections to the picture, and then do a SAVE AS to a new file name and folder, selecting JPG format.
    6. Selection MAX QUALITY from subsequent dialogue box, and SAVE.
    When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
    I've been doing some reading on this over the weekend, but cant explain away the severe loss in file size, and whether this is right, or if I'm doing something wrong in the process.
    Appreciate any advice or suggestions to help improve my work processes, and ultimately the final photos!

    Regarding your file size questions, have a look at this thread and see if it answers some of your questions:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/741532/0
    > When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
    Dimensions and resolution are related and multiple combinations can be produced from the same number of pixels. For example, your 50D at maximum image size produces 4,752 by 3,168 pixels. This full-size image could be printed at:
    - 19.8 x 13.2 inches at 240 PPI
    - 47.52 x 31.68 inches at 100 PPI
    - 7.92 x 5.28 inches at 600 PPI
    As you can maybe see, talking about dimensions and resolution doesn't make much sense until you are ready to consider printing. Note also that I used "PPI" or Pixels Per Inch since this is the slightly more correct terminology. DPI or "Dots Per Inch" is usually a reference to how a printer lays down the ink drops onto the paper. Many printers actually put more "dots" on the paper than there are pixels. Many people and companies use DPI when they mean PPI.
    Now in your case you are apparently starting with an SRAW2 raw file. SRAW2 files from the 50D have a reduced number of pixels and are 2,276 pixels wide by 1,584 pixels high. At 240 PPI this would allow you to print the image at 9.9 by 6.6 inches. If you are ending up with something smaller than that, it means you have either re-sampled the image (changed the image so the same image is displayed with fewer pixels) or you have cropped the image.
    Hope that helps.

  • Any way to have file size included in the first search in finder?

    Is it possible to somehow show file sizes when doing a search in finder?
    On Panther, it was very helpful to have the file sizes listed. This immediately revealed whether the photoshop files I was looking for were full size or reduced.
    But when I run a search in Snow Leopard it only shows name, kind and last opened. Otherwise I have to also add a second search to add in file size.
    Any way to have file size included in the first search?
    Thanks!

    Well, I wish I could take credit for knowing it was there before two days ago... but I dropped my laptop a couple months ago and it finally died for good on Friday, and I noticed this on the new laptop when setting up my Finder preferences.

  • 10.4.3 File Size Shown Incorrectly in Finder Window

    Tiger 10.4.3 --- Sometimes file sizes don't display correctly in Finder windows. For example, I was just downloading a bunch of large files from an FTP site. They were all 44.1Mb in size. After they finished DL'ing, some of the file sizes showed a much smaller file size. But cmd-I on those files and the correct size is displayed.
    Some of these files show up with the correct size, but only after waiting a loooong time...
    Can anyone tell me why don't file sizes show up correctly? Or immediately? Any help will be appreciated!

    Is this causing any problems, or is it just a quirky behavior? For example, if you change to list view and sort by date, does it still get the dates wrong?
    I'm thinking this is probably a really marginal bug, where Composer isn't telling the Finder to refresh the date as most applications do, but then, Mozilla does a lot of unMaclike things. Eventually the Finder figures out that the files have been updated though. There are probably a host of ways you can force it to update, as you've already discovered. You can also force it to update with a simple AppleScript:
    tell application "Finder"
    update every item of window 1
    end tell
    This tells the Finder to update everything in the frontmost window to match what's on the disk.

  • Preview:  how to find export file size?

    Odd that I didn't find a thread on "save-as".  Are they squashed? 
    I lament the loss of "Save as…", but I would be willing to accept the use of "Export…" wholeheartedly if I could predict the file size. 
    One of the main ways I use Preview is to normalize images without a lot of heady image editing;  colour tweaking, size, ratio, resolution, then save JPEG's for use in iTunes cover art.  The end of this task was normalizing an image file size as a JPEG.  Now, all I see is a slider that gives me a relative file size and no indication of the absolute range I'm working within.  The only way I view my desired file size is to export, then use Finder "get info" to see the file size as disk usage. 
    Is there a way to do this inside the Preview application, as a parameter of exporting, like I did before Lion? 

    Thought I'd complete this thread that I found unresolved.
    In subsequent versions, the absolute value is at the bottom of the export dialogue box. If it was there or toggled at the time I asked then I couldn't find it, but it is now so problem solved.  Currently running v8.

  • Find command with file size

    Hello again,
    With my find command I'm trying to get my output to include the file size as it would show in Finder. I believe it's called the "physical" size. Am I going in the right direction with this code or is there a better way?
    find /Users/username/Library -name "foo" -prune -maxdepth 3 -exec du -hs {} ;
    Thanks again for your input,
    Rick

    If going down the awk route, might try a slightly different approach
    find /Users/username/Library
    -name "foo"
    -prune
    -maxdepth 3
    -ls | awk '{print $2 "
    " $NF;}'
    The -ls avoids invoking a subprocess for every file just so the du command can be called.
    The down side is that you do not get benefit of the *du -h* option to humanize the values.
    Another approach that would invoke du fewer times would be to put xargs in the pipeline
    find /Users/username/Library
    -name "foo"
    -prune
    -maxdepth 3
    -print0 | xargs -0 du -hs | awk '{print $1 "
    " $2;}'
    xargs will bundle up a group of files for each du command to process in one invocation.
    The -print0 and -0 will make sure that spaces in file paths do not cause problems for the du command.
    Oh yea, if you are going to also be performing a bunch of find commands together, you could do all of those commands in a single pipeline
    ( find /path1 -name ... -print0;
    find /path2 -name ... -print0;
    find /path3 -name ... -print0
    ) | xargs -0 du -hs | awk '{print $1 "
    " $2;}'
    Message was edited by: BobHarris

Maybe you are looking for