File Size Reduction With AA 3.0

Greetings,
I have an audio file, the quality of which needs to stay intact, that needs to be reduced so I can put it on a WordPress website.(Much like one does to send a picture over email)
Is this possible with AA 3.0, if yes how do I do it and if no do you have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Mona

To go on a bit from what Ryclark said:
In fact, there ARE some "lossless" compression algorithms (such as FLAC) the will make your file smaller without compromising quality. The trouble is, they don't make your files all that much smaller--and the codecs for people accessing your Wordpress blog are far from universal. If you need a format that everyone can open without messing around, you're pretty much stuck with MP3 as a compromise.
If you only need a few people to listen to your file in optimum quality--and if they are willing to download necessary codecs--you can get the software you need from http://www.vuplayer.com/audition.php . There are other FLAC codecs available for simple playback if you don't need it to plug into Audition.
However, for universal playback, you're likely stuck with MP3 (which IS a lossy compression system). You'll have to experiment and use your ears to determine the best compromise between file size and quality.
Bob

Similar Messages

RE: File Size Reduction by Hiding Layers

I've come across the trick of hiding layers to reduce file size, however am wondering exactly what is happening.
Here's my situation.
20.6mb PSD
Hiding the layers reduces the file to 13.1mb
I've been told that the file reduction is because preview images are no longer being generated.
Could preview images really be accounting for nearly 40% of the file size?
To test this I saved this file as a JPG at 100% quality (not for web) and yielded a 1.34mb file.
This leaves me with roughly 6.6mb of file reduction unaccounted for.
Is something else being siltently compressed/compatibility settings not included/other info being excluded from the file when layers are hidden?
NOTE:
I need to make sure my files have maximum compatibility for opening them in Lightroom and other programs that open PSDs like Painter - so compatibility settings are important.
I need to make sure that everything will still be setup properly for print and no compression is ocurring.
Could some please tell me what exactly is excluded from a file to lower the file size 40% when hiding layers?
Thanks!

Similar, yes... but that still doesn't answer my question
2400x1600px image
only a background layer
RGB 8bits/channel 72dpi
19.2mb
...hide layer = 9.91mb
.. white layer on top = 10.1mb (similar results as you said)
DIFFERENCE: 9.29mb
So, back to the question. Is it REALLY just the thumbnail/preview image taking up 50% of the file size in this case? Seriously? I would think that Adobe would be a bit more efficient with saving preview images. So...back to my earlier test to try and get a comparison of what a full size/full quality preview image would weigh, I've saved this image as:
high res JPG (not for web) = 1.55mb
compressed (layered) PNG = 3.64mb
compressed (layered) TIFF = 3.99mb
I also tried saving different combinations of layered/compressed versions of the PNG and TIFF files (although I think JPGs would be a more accurate representation of preview image file size). Uncompressed PNGs and TIFFs were far too large for the 9.29mb difference.
These don't even come within a couple of mb of the file size reduction from hiding the layers....
So, my question:
If hiding a layer is reducing the file size by supposedely rendering less pixel data to the preview images, then
- why don't any of these "mock" preview image situations come close to accounting for the size in reduction?
Even a layered lossless compressed TIFF still leaves an unexplained 5mb+ (9.29mb total file size reduction - 3.99mb TIFF)
I'm curious and need this for a specific (yet reocurring) situation at the workplace.
It really seems like there's something else that is happening when you save a file with layers hidden.
Is there any other possible scenarios (generating mutliple thumbnail sizes/sets, metadata based on pixel data, other information based on pixel data, silent compression, settings changing, etc) that could possibly explain this?

16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file, LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction.

I've got a 16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file that LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction. Can't figure out why it is downsizing so small? Even upsized to 420ppi in PS and the export was still only 2mb. Stock agency wants 3mb .jpg minimum. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Using PS CS6 with NO changes applied to the original TIFF the JPEG file size is 8.686 MB. The slightly larger file size is due to metadata differences between LR and PS.
Both Adobe applications (PS CS6 and LR 5.71) are producing near identical and much larger highest quality JPEG files. PS 12 Quality is the same as LR 100.
SUGGESTION:
1) Close LR and rename your LR Preferences file by adding the extension .OLD to it:
Mac OS X
Preferences
/Users/[user name]/Library/Preferences/com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist.OLD
Windows 7 & 8
Preferences
C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Preferences\Lightroom 5 Preferences.agprefs.OLD
Reopen LR and it will create a new Preferences file. Try the JPEG Export again using the same settings as I have posted.
2) If still no change I suggest uninstalling LR, delete the new LR Preferences file created in step #1 above, keep the .OLD Preferences file, and reinstall LR 5.71.
3) If all is well now close LR and try restoring you original Preferences file by renaming the new Preferences file something like .OLD.OLD and removing .OLD from the original file.

Amazingly inefficient file size reduction

I have some Texinfo documents that are regularly updated and from which HTML and PDF documentation is then produced. The PDF as it comes from Texinfo is about 850 pages, contains a lot of small graphics, and is about ~50Mb in size. When I use Acrobat (v9.5.1 running on Windows 7 x64) to reduce the file size, the process takes in excess of 12 hours to complete, and when I look at processes in Task Manager when the file size reduction has completed, I can see that the acrobat.exe process has read 61Gb and written 11Gb. At the end of the process, the PDf has been reduced from 50Mb to around 30Mb.
The machine on which Acrobat is running is not at all underpowered - it has an Intel core i7 CPU and 12Gb of RAM. Any suggestions on possibilities for speeding up the file size reduction. The excessively long processing time is not a one-off aberration - I've run the file size reduction half a dozen times now over a few months, and it takes this long to reduce the file size on every occasion.

Hi jamesfb,
You can do so by resizing your image. It will be under the More (&) menu> image size

PDF file size grows with each save if .access property set on a field

We are seeing an odd form behavior and have isolated the apparent trigger to something we are doing in the form script. I'm hoping someone can confirm they see the same problem, details follow:
We have a form generated in LiveCycle. It contains a text field. In the docReady event for that field we have javascript which sets the field to be readOnly (TextField1.access = "readOnly"). We reader extend the form so we can save it from reader and/or the plug-in/control which is used by a browser when reading PDFs.
With that simple form, open the form via the browser (we've tested with both IE and Chrome) and without doing anything else, just save the form (with a new name). When we do that, the saved copy of the form is significantly bigger than the copy we started with. If we then repeat the process using the newly saved file, the third copy is bigger than the second.
This file growth does not happen if you open the file in Adobe Reader (instead of in the browser).
When we look at the file contents via a text editor, what we have found is that each save via the browser is tacking on a chunk of data to the end of the file AFTER the %%EOF mark. This new section appears to be one or more object definitions and ends with another %%EOF. The first portion of the file (prior to the first %%EOF) is identical in all versions of the file.
If you take a copy of the file that has these extra section added, then open and save it in Adobe Reader, it eliminates those extra sections and you get a 'clean', small version of the file again. So those extra sections are clearly erroneous and unnecessary.
Another thing worth noting, we took the script for setting the field access property out of the docReady event and put it as the click event on a button added to the form. If you then open the form, press the button and save it you see the file growth (but not if you don't press the button.) So it doesn't appear related to the docReady event, or timing of when we set the access property of the field.
On the small test form described above the growth of the file is around 13KBytes. But in testing with our real forms we've found that the amount of growth seems to be tied to the size/complexity of the form and the form data. In our most complex form with multiple pages with hundreds of fields and a large amount of XML data (form size is 2+MB), we are getting a file size increase of 700KBytes on each save. This is a therefore, a significant issue for us, particularly since the process in which the form is used requires the users to save it a couple of times a day over the period of a month or more.

I would start by exporting the XML data from the form before and after it grows to see if it is the underlying data that is growing and where. Did you define a schema and bind your form fields to a data connection created from the schema? That is always my first step when creating a form. It makes for a smaller saved file not including multiple levels of sub forms in the data structure.

CC BRIDGE FILE SIZE REDUCTION/NO ADJUSTMENT

In previous versions of ADOBE BRIDGE (CS4-CS5) the RAW file size was adjustable using the dialog box accessed from the bottom of the RAW frame. Set to MAXIMUM it produced an image 20x14 @ 21mb for JPEG files. Usable.
The NEW version of BRIDGE creates a file size 14x9@ 9mb for JPEG files.
Using a NIKON D300, shooting RAW, I cannot get a larger file size from BRIDGE no matter what I do. Same raw file loaded into BRIDGE (CS4) GIVES me the larger size, in CC...smaller file.
I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
Very frustrating.
Anyone know about this and if there is a workaround??

I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
Bridge CC uses a different way of resizing then before. You now have almost unlimited choices to set the wanted size using the new image sizing option in the same menu as before in ACR (blue line at the bottom)
Click on the checkmark in front of 'resize to fit' and select the option you want from the drop down menu, e.g. set to match the wanted Megapixels size. By default it stays at the last set option like it was before with the few offered presets.
Try it out, it would be nice to have the option to save your own presets but sadly enough this is not the case. However there are a lot more options to choose from

Illustrator file size reduction

Illustrator 11.0
Win XP Pro SP2
Adobe Acrobat 6.0
Why are ai files so much larger than the pdf's they generate. For example I cut and pasted an excel spreadsheet into Illustrator. No bitmaps or rasterized data.
ai file is 2.5Mb (acrobat compatible, compression on)
ai file is 7 Mb (compression off) yikes!
saved as pdf 2.2Mb
printed to adobe acrobat 6.0 24kb (maintains vector output with great zoom)
these are all vector files and there is a 100 to 1 size ratio between them.
If I take the small pdf and use the edit file command in acrobat and then re save the illustrator to ai file it is still over 2Mb.
I have a long framemaker document that will have 60 some line drawings and text and I need the ai files to be smaller due to memory considerations.
What can I do to shrink these ai files.? I don't want any bitmaps or rasterized illustrations in my end product pdf file.

Interesting results here. All tests conducted with AI 12 (don't have AI 11). All .ai files were saved with compression and no profile embedded. All PDFs were created via 'save as' or Distiller (print to PDF) using Acrobat 7 compatibility and Text and Line Art preset.
Downloaded [Test1 copy from xcell.ai], opened it in AI 12, stripped unused swatches, styles, brushes, etc. then saved as .ai with no PDF compatibility. Resulting file: 456 KB
Same as above but saved
with PDF compatibility. Resulting .ai file: 417 KB (!)
Same as above but saved as v11 .ai with, then without, PDF compatibility. Resulting .ai files: 1,011 KB
regardless of PDF compatibility (!)
As above but saved as v10 .ai without PDF compatibility. Resulting file: 412 KB
Again v10 but with PDF compatibility: 374 KB (!)
Saved as PDF with .ai editing preserved: 999 KB
Saved as PDF without .ai editing preserved: 133 KB
Distilled PDF (printed to Adobe PDF): 56 KB
Downloaded Excel file and printed to PDF from Excel. PDF file: 53 KB
That PDF file then opened in AI 12 and saved as v12 .ai with no PDF compatibility: 282 KB

File Size Reduction When Editing in Photoshop

When using Smart Objects my DNG file sizes increase from 9mb to over 100mb after a few adjustments.
I found that I can reduce the file size greatly, for example back to 9mb, by reducing the Image Size to, for example 300 x 400 pixels, without flattening.
Then I can save the file. The next time I want to work on it, I can open it, change the image size back to the original, for example, 2592 x 3872, and have all of my adjustments and filters available to make further changes.
Although, I cannot see any difference in quality, I am new to this, and I am concerned that I am not skilled enough to see the difference.
It would be very beneficial to store 9mb files instead of 100mb files and still have the same quality available, when needed.
Please tell me if I am missing something here.

Jeff,
With your guidance, I did an experiment. I made a Curves Layer and painted on the mask to reveal the adjustment. I then changed the file sizes as shown in the table, saved the file, re-opened it, and then re-sized it. (Image Size in pixels; File Size in megabytes). The comments under image refer to the painted area of the layer mask. As you indicated, I did not observe any degradation outside the painted area of the layer mask.
Image Size File Size Layer Mask Image
2592x3872 112.5 mb
800x1195 18.9 Intact Slight Saturation and sharpness
degradation
2x3 8.5 Blurred Major degradation
Thanks for directing me to the issue. This will allow me to make an informed choice when balancing quality with file size.

PDF File Size Reduction

Currently, I am using Adobe Reader XI, but am looking for a version that allows for the reduction of the PDF file size. This is especially useful when e-mailing documents. Can anyone suggest the best version to keep the editing functions (ex. PDF to Word), but add the reduction capabilities?
Thanks.

Bill-
Thanks so much.
I’ll take a look at upgrading to Acrobat and see if that will do the trick.
I appreciate the response.
Thanks again.
Ed Perne
Corporate Director, Human Resources & Risk Management
11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 345
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(p) 310-235-2745, ext. 408
(f) 310-943-1600

File Size - Photoshop With LR or Bridge

When I open files from LR (Ctrl-E) in Photoshop, LR immediately creates a .tiff file approximately 5 times the size of the original DNG. Then it quadruples in size again when it is converted into a Smart Object.
Here is what I did:
From LR Ctrl-E (ProPhoto,.tiff,16-bit). In PS Convert to Smart Object. Save File and the size went from 9.73mb to 175.6mb.
From Bridge, double click on the same photo. In ACR choose Open Object. In PS Convert to Smart Object. Save File and the size went from 9.73mb to 95.1mb.
What is going on here? Is there some benefit to having files twice as big for what appears to be the same result in the image?

I checked, both are 16-bit.
It appears that an unflattened image processed from LR is much larger than when the same image is processed through Bridge. For example, a 9.5mb DNG becomes a 216.5mb image after Curves, Levels, and Unsharp Mask when processed as a Smart Object in PS. The same file processed with the same adjustments through Bridge is 139.4mb.
Once the image is flattened, there is little difference in file size whether processed in LR or PS.
For my work flow, it seems appropriate to commit to the adjustments, flatten, reduce the image size, and convert to 8-bit. The 216.5mb file then becomes a 5mb file. For the rare occasion that I want to reprocess a file, I just have to do it all over again starting from the DNG. This defeats the main benefit of being able to tweak the adjustments using Smart Objects, but my storage demands are greatly reduced.
For those really rare times when I have a large investment of time adjusting an image, it makes sense to process is through Bridge and save the large file. However, I can see no benefit to opening such an image from LR and ending up with a file twice the size.

File size issue with exporting PDF

We write a newsletter for our daughter's gym and are trying to export a Pages '08 document into a PDF small enough for e-mail. When we export with Best settings the file size is 3.2MB, with Better the file is 4.1MB and with Good the file size is 3.8MB. Why would the lowest quality setting (Good) result in a larger file size than Best?

Welcome to Apple Discussions
That does seem odd the "good" export would be bigger. One thing that causes Pages documents to be so big is the graphics. If you pre-process the images to close to the actual size you'll use it will reduce the size of your Pages document. I prefer using GraphicConverter but you could use any image editor such as Photoshop Elements.
Also, if you do any image manipulation in Pages, it will greatly increase the file size because Pages keeps all of the images in the document package.
You can also try the "Reduce File Size" filter in ColorSync in the Print dialog. Click "Copies & Pages" > ColorSync & then Reduce File Size under Filters, Then click the PDF button in the lower left of the Print dialog. I don't find that the Compress PDF choice in the PDF menu saves much, if any.

Tiff file size reduction

I notice that when I open a tiff file with CS6 and then close it, the size has been reduced. If I do the same thing with Microsoft Image software, the file stays the same size. Any idea why? As far as I know I am not telling Cs6 to compress the file.

Using PS CS6 with NO changes applied to the original TIFF the JPEG file size is 8.686 MB. The slightly larger file size is due to metadata differences between LR and PS.
Both Adobe applications (PS CS6 and LR 5.71) are producing near identical and much larger highest quality JPEG files. PS 12 Quality is the same as LR 100.
SUGGESTION:
1) Close LR and rename your LR Preferences file by adding the extension .OLD to it:
Mac OS X
Preferences
/Users/[user name]/Library/Preferences/com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist.OLD
Windows 7 & 8
Preferences
C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Preferences\Lightroom 5 Preferences.agprefs.OLD
Reopen LR and it will create a new Preferences file. Try the JPEG Export again using the same settings as I have posted.
2) If still no change I suggest uninstalling LR, delete the new LR Preferences file created in step #1 above, keep the .OLD Preferences file, and reinstall LR 5.71.
3) If all is well now close LR and try restoring you original Preferences file by renaming the new Preferences file something like .OLD.OLD and removing .OLD from the original file.

Exponential File Size Reduction

Hi All,
Attached is a .vi that I recieved from this forum (Altenbach I believe).
Currently this vi copies every x line from a source file to a new file. It works great however now I am interested in reducing the sampling rate. For example I would like to grab every line initially, then grab every other line, then every third line etc. I was thinking that the easiest way to do this is to introduce a feature that counts up (i.e. grab on line then skip a line, then skip 2, then skip 3, then skip 4...etc to the end of the file).
Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. (Note: I am a very new user to labview and it may be a simple change that I am missing)
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
Reduce File Size.vi ‏12 KB

Christian_M wrote:
Attachement is compiled for 8.5.1
I don't think the calculation for N is still correct. We probably need a while loop to see when we run out of elements (or do some more fancy math).
Ideally, the decimation rate should depend on how fast the important values change with each line: Skip many lines if the value is nearly constant, but retain most lines if the signal changes significantly between lines, for example.
Message Edited by altenbach on 10-16-2008 10:04 AM
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

Saved file size decreases with time

Hi all,
I am using Data acquisition system with rate 10000 and 1000 sample per channel (exist 4 channels) to acquire analog voltage signals to measure the amplitude in each channel.
Moreover the raw signals are saved as TDM file of 1 minute. The system is running continuously for one week. I noticed that after 3 hours the saved file size is decreased as a function of time.
The size starts with 50 MB/min and after 3hours it became 42MB/min, after 1 day became 11MB/min. That indicated the data was lost , please, what is my programing mistake.
Thanks
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
Acquisition system.png ‏177 KB

From the State Zero code, there are several things that could be improved here.
1. You only need to create the task once before your main loop.
2. You probably do not even need the outter loop if you use the DAQmx Configure Logging like I have already stated. And you can use properties to say how many samples to go into a file before moving on, so that part of your code is eliminated.
3. The display can just be a simple chart (it looks like you are probably already using a chart).
What is your chart history set for? That could be causing your slowdown if there are too many data points.
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines

File Sizes Surge with Merger of Aperture an iPhoto Libraries

I merged an Aperture library and an iPhoto library. All went well. However, the resulting file sizes on BOTH new libraries have increased significantly. The iPhoto file size went from ~ 50 gigs to ~144 gigs and the Aperture library went from ~90 gigs to ~ 102 gigs.
I thought I would be able to delete one of the libraries (iPhoto) after the merger, but now that it is so big...I;m not sure what to do.
I can understand the post merger Aperture library getting larger, but why the iPhoto library?
Also, I read that the iPhoto library may contain "originals" and that only versions merged over into the new Aperture (post merger) library. Is that true? If so, what can be done to move over the originals to whicheveer library survives?
Thanks!

How exactly did you merge? And what are your Aperture and iPhoto versions?
Why are there two new libraries after merging an Aperture library and an iPhoto library? Merging two libraries should create one merged library, or am I missing something?
WIth Aperture 3.3 or later and iPhoto 9.3 or later: If you want to merge an iPhoto library into an Aperture library, you would open the Aperture library and then use "File > Import > Library" and select the iPhoto Library to merge the iPhoto Library into your Aperture library.
The Aperture library should increase in size to accomodate your iPhoto images, but the size of the imported iPhoto library should stay the same.
Also, I read that the iPhoto library may contain "originals" and that only versions merged over into the new Aperture (post merger) library. Is that true? If so, what can be done to move over the originals to whicheveer library survives?
That will depend on the iPhoto and Aperture versions you are using. With any Aperture version later than Aperture 3.3. both the originals and edited versions will be imported into Aperture, when you import an iPhoto library as library to merge it into the Aperture library. Only if your iPhoto library is referenced (the original image files not included in the iPhoto library), then Aperture will also reference these original files and not import them into the Aperture library. YOu can consolidate the originals later in aperture.
But we need to know, how exactly you merged your libraries to be able to understand, how both libraries increased in size. Did you not use "File > Import > Library"?
-- Léonie

File Size Reduction With AA 3.0

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for