File sizes shown to be twice as big in Finder

I work with 2 different Mac Pro towers.  The one at my home has Photoshop cs4 and the one at my studio has Photoshop cs6.  The other day I noticed that Finder on my studio computer shows the file size to be twice as big as the finder on my home computer.  The pixel dimension size doesn't change, just the file size.  It shows up that way after I save it on my studio computer. If I take that file home and resave it on that computer then the Finder shows the smaller file size again.  I guess the questions I have are: Is the file size is actually increasing and if so, what could be causing that to happen?  Photoshop shows the files to be the same size, but in the Finder window is where I see the difference.  Holla!!

Sounds like you have "Maximize Compatibility" enabled in the Photoshop which saves the bigger files, and have it disabled in the other Photoshop.
See the control in Preferences > File Handling.

Similar Messages

  • File Size Shown in Folio Producer

    Hi,
    Is there currently a way to see the entire download file size of an app in Folio Producer? If not, this would be a helpful feature in another version of DPS, especially with the increased folio sizes with the new iPad.

    I would suspect you moved the .mov file, but at some point in processing and saving things you have failed to note that the .mov file should be saved as a "self contained" movie, so that the actual movie content is left somewhere on your hard-drive. The .mov file will play on the computer, because it is pointing to the location of the content, which is accessed and used, but when you move (or try to) the .mov file, the content is left behind on the hard drive, and only the container is moved. Thus there is nothing TO play in the new location, there is just the container with no content.
    Francine
    Francine
    Schwieder

  • Incorrect file sizes shown in Finder over NFS and permissions issues

    Hi there
    This is a problem that existed for me in Leopard and has not been resolved in Snow Leopard.
    I have an XSan with a Leopard server sharing over NFS and AFP. When I connect from a Leopard or Snow Leopard client over NFS the file sizes in Finder are incorrectly displayed. My Tiger clients work perfectly.
    Also, although it says I have read write access to the files over NFS I cannot save over an existing file when I make changes to it, I instead have to create a new version of it and remove the old one.
    Check the link to show a grab of one of the folders in question, the upper window is what the NFS shows me, the lower AFP. If you Get Info on the files over either connection the byte count is identical.
    http://www.the-9000.com/images/finder_anomaly.tiff
    Any info would be greatly appreciated.

    This is a problem that existed for me in Leopard and has not been resolved in Snow Leopard.
    Have you filed a bug report with Apple?
    http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter/
    If not, there's less of a chance they'll know about it and help fix it for you.
    Do things look OK from the command line in Terminal?
    It would probably be useful to use a tool like Wireshark to check out what each protocol is sending over the wire. That could at least narrow it down to being a client or server issue.
    Thanks
    --macko

  • 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.

  • Incorrect QuickTime file size shown in Finder

    I have a few QuickTime movies that I moved out of Aperture in order to move back into the newest iPhoto. When I attempted to sync my iPhoto library with my iPhone, the videos would not sync, so I investigated further and found that while they play perfectly fine under both iPhoto and in QuickTime 7 and QuickTime X, the file size in Finder is showing each movie as only a few KB in size, when in fact they are dozens of MBs in size.
    What the heck is going on? Permissions repair did nothing, I can't think of what else to try.

    I would suspect you moved the .mov file, but at some point in processing and saving things you have failed to note that the .mov file should be saved as a "self contained" movie, so that the actual movie content is left somewhere on your hard-drive. The .mov file will play on the computer, because it is pointing to the location of the content, which is accessed and used, but when you move (or try to) the .mov file, the content is left behind on the hard drive, and only the container is moved. Thus there is nothing TO play in the new location, there is just the container with no content.
    Francine
    Francine
    Schwieder

  • File sizes are coming about a bit big

    Okay so I've been having this problem for a few days now, and I can't figure out how to fix it. I am rendering a 30 second clip recorded in 1080p in a quicktime format, with H.264 compression and no effects added and the file size is coming pretty large. I also tried it in H.264 format with the same codec and the file size is pretty much the same. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    You say you've been using the same render settings you've always used and the same workflow you've always used, but the result is different. Clearly, something has changed. Computers aren't whimsy-driven, drama-loving, capricious machines. They only do what they are told. Now, it could be that something outside of your control changed, but it would help us all try to help you figure it out if you gave more information.
    Have you installed any software recently? Have you installed any codec packs recently (such as k-lite)? Has your computer updated itself recently (Adobe software, Windows, etc.)?
    Screenshots of your AE render settings would be useful. Are you running version 11.0.4 of AE? What OS (I'm guessing Windows, but which one)? Etc.

  • 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.

  • Why is there a difference in file size shown for QT files?

    After creating a self-contained QT file, it displays in the folder window as 8.5GB, even though I know it has to be much larger, and when I check "Get Info" on the file, it displays as 16.5GB. Has this happened with anyone else? This has happened multiple times for me recently.

    Close the folder window and re-open it. Is it now showing the correct size?
    Sometimes the finder windows don't refresh properly when they are open and you add a file.

  • File size display issue in DM 2?

    I'm seeing some flakiness in the file sizes shown in the new Desktop Manager. I have a nominal 8GB card, which DM shows as 7.5GB. It shows 778MB Used, 5.6GB Music and 16384PB free (a petabyte is 10^6 gigabytes, so this is 16,385,000 terabytes).
    "[b][URL=http://www.rsoutlet-4u.com/rosetta-stone-portuguese-c-4.html]Rosetta Stone Portuguese[/URL][/b]
    [b][URL=http://www.rsoutlet-4u.com/rosetta-stone-russian-c-15.html]Rosetta Stone Russian[/URL][/b]"

    Finder often takes it time updating the file size. When the ZIP starts, it creates a small file, because it doesn't know how big the result will be. When it finishes, it closes the file with the correct size, but is neglecting the sending of a notification to the Finder, so the old file size is still displayed. When you do something that forces the finder to look at the file again, it corrects the display of the file size.
    (The large size is correct, because MPEG, MP#, JPEG, etc. files are already compressed, so cannot be compressed much more.)

  • How to Reduce GIF file Size?

    I have Created few GIf images for website site but it not support big file size my all gif file size maximum 80 kb. i used few online tool for reduce size but after my images showing blur please any idea that I reduced file size and image still remain same. big file size take load time when upload in website please check a example website http://www.printsasia.co.uk and gif banner.

    Let's stick with your other thread, shall we?
    Mylenium

  • Annoying but not fatal bug uncovered in Aperture file size metadata.

    The bug described below was found as a result of testing the relative print sharpness of the Aperture print routines. I printed an adjusted Canon 5D image with Aperture's print routine to a 4X6, 300ppi print output, then took the same image through P'shop, (as a PSD) downsized the file to the same dimensions and converted it to 8-bit color depth. Then printed the returned file through Aperture.
    To my surprise when I was performing this comparison, I found that the file size shown in the metadata panel of the test file was not reduced, even though I had significantly downsized the file (from an "outbound" 72.2GB to an "inbound" file of slightly less than 7GB. So I repeated the round trip to P'shop, using the OSX Inspector to examine the relevant .approject size at three points in the workflow:
    1) Before executing the "Open in External Editor" command;
    2) After the PSD version had been created by Aperture; and
    3) After re-sizing the file in P'Shop and saving it back to Aperture.
    The net of the test was as follows:
    1) The size of the base (pre-export) .approject increased by approximately 72.2GB when it created the 16-bit PSD file for export to P'shop - exactly what the metadata showed and what I expected for a 5D file at 16-bit color depth.
    2) When the resized file was returned from P'shop, the base .approject file was now only 7.5GB larger, indicating the size of the returned file was in fact reduced by the downsizing.
    So the problem is not creation of an abnormally large Aperture PSD file. The metadata file size is simply not updated when the downsized file is returned from P'shop.
    I submitted a bug report to Apple on this, but I'm not sure what priority it will get. So this is an FYI in case others have observed a similar phenomenon and been concerned about it.
    BTW: The file downsized via the P'Shop round trip was noticeably sharper on printing (from Aperture) than the print produced directly out of Aperture. So it appears the print output sharpening routines in Aperture still need considerable improvement. That's the improvement I'd rather have Apple spending their time on than an anoying but not fatal bug in file size metadata.
    Mike
    PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz, Radeon X800XT Graphics Card; MacBookPro 2.0Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   iMac800 and Powerbook G4 also in household

    I was trying to imagine how you were managing taking more than a few photographs if your files were increasing the space take by 72GB a pop.
    I was also imagining a camera the size of an aircraft carrier.

  • Image size vs file size

    Hello,
    I would very much appreciate an answer to the follwing:  When I save a file to jpeg the image size in photoshop remains the same as it was as a tiff file BUT according to the information that comes up in windows properties the file is much smaller (300k vs 2.9mg).   Can you advise me which is the correct file size?   If the correct size is the one showing in windows (300K) does mean that the file compressed in JPG and lost a lot of information?  and if this is the case how can I prevent that from happening and still save the file as a JPG?   [ I would like the image to remain the size photoshop shows it to be] .  Thank you very much.

    The file size of the JPG on disk is 300kb this is because it is heavily compressed.
    The file size shown in Photoshop is uncompressed and appears at the larger size.
    Yes, compressing loses information but it may not lose much quality the first time it is compressed.
    To minimise data loss use a compressed TIFF format.
    Or stop worrying about file size – storage space is cheap!
    The only time JPEGs should be used is for display on the web.
    In fact for general use in Adobe applications, the PSD format is fine. (As long as it lasts!   )

  • QT file size off the chart

    i am exporting a basketball game that i have off a camera. the file is 13 gb already. i want it way smaller but still good quality to watch as a quicktime. when i export as 422 it bloats to 44 gb. if i use h264 it is small - under 1 gb, but very ugly. i have exported tons of video before and usually using 422 makes things smaller - not larger.
    DV, 720 × 480 (640 × 480), Millions
    16-bit Integer (Big Endian), Stereo, 48.000 kHz
    this is the native file info? any help?

    i am exporting a basketball game that i have off a camera. the file is 13 gb already.
    The file size is directly proportional to the total audio + video data rate.
    i want it way smaller but still good quality to watch as a quicktime.
    A "quicktime" movie is any QT or third-party data compression format in an MOV file container that is play on a system having properly configured QT component support. There a dozens of possibilities which can be combined in hundreds of possible ways with settings offering thousands of possibilities. Can you be more specific regarding your goals?
    if i use h264 it is small - under 1 gb, but very ugly.
    H.264 is a very efficient codec with a wide range of useable video data rates. Depending on your requirements for display dimensions, minimum quality acceptability, and/or maximum acceptable file size, there should be a data rate the will server your needs. Basically, SD H.264 video can be exported in the range of 1 to 18 Mbps depending on what your will settle for in terms of quality and file size for a particular display size. Quality is proportional to the data rate which is inversely proportional to the file size. What you need to to is find a happy medium between these three requirements.
    DV, 720 × 480 (640 × 480), Millions, 16-bit Integer (Big Endian), Stereo, 48.000 kHz... this is the native file info? any help?
    This looks like a video editor capture of camcorder content in standard definition. It likely has a total video data rate on the order of 28.5 Mbps (about 13 GBs per hour of content). Since your previous H.264 export indicates a combined total data rate on the order of 2.2 Mbps, you might try manually exporting the file limiting the video data rate to something in the 3 to 4 Mbps range and an AAC stereo audio track of 160 Kbps @ 48.0 KHz. This should improve quality and provide a target file one quarter to one third the size of your original "source" file. Since you did not provide any information regarding the aspect ratio, I cannot provide specific dimensions settings here. (I.e. if source was PAR 16:9, then you might target a 853x480 display size or 640x480 if in a 4:3 for smaller file size or 720x480 PAR encode for 640x480 playback if you want to force the video data to encode at a higher data rate. (I.e., H.264 video is adaptive depending on the content and settings used.)
    I think it is a file that was captured at a high def type setting - although it was not high def to begin with. thus the huge file.
    The original file on the camcorder may have been HD, but the captured file is SD and the file size of 13 GB is quite normal for an hour of content using the DV-25 codec. (DV-50 and DV-100 files would be double and quadruple this size.) This is simply a low efficiency (i.e., low compression format) which provides higher editing quality at the expense of file size.

  • Android file size limitation?

    How can I package an Android app that is over the 50mb limit using Flash Pro CS6 and Air?  Google now allows for additional content to be downloaded separately ...

    OK ... so I called tech support on the phone and spent 15 minutes trying to convince them then Flash Pro CS6 could be used to create an Android app..  The conversation went nowhere.  Uhhhhgggg!!!
    Here's the deal ...  Flash Pro CS6 is advertised as being able to create Android apps.  The 50MB file size limitation may not be a big deal for many people right now, but give it a year or two.  Most phones coming out have HD screens.  How can you pack all the assets of large game into <50MB???
    So ... I'm going to continue to bump this thread (and the two other ones I have going) until I get a knowedgable response from Adobe. 

  • What is the maximum file size allowed by Yosemite's Archive Utility?

    I've seen radically different answers to this question, ranging from ".zip files have a 4GB size limit" to "no limit other than the OS maximum file size". It's been very difficult to find current info on this.
    I have lots of large folders full of recording projects --- I'm talking up to 45GB or so --- and I've been experimenting with different methods of zipping them in preparation for cloud backup. Several applications have been willing to zip my enormous folders into archives, but then choke when unzipping them, telling me that the files cannot be unzipped or are corrupted. Using the "Compress" shortcut in the finder has so far yielded the best results, keeping all necessary resource forks, etc., and unzipping properly, even when other apps have insisted the files are corrupted. However, I'm afraid to continue with this procedure until I can get a straight answer on this issue: have I just been lucky so far? IS there an actual size limit?
    ...It only seems to work when I both zip and unzip with the Archive Utility. Other archiving apps will either render the included projects unreadable by my recording software when zipping (I suspect because of alteration or stripping of resource forks), or will refuse to read the giant .zip archives generated by Archive Utility.
    I've set up the Archive Utility to produce .zip files, as I feel these are the most likely to be recognized by a variety of cloud storage services.ny
    ...Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!

    Hi,
    The 1,048,576 rows & 16,384 columns is the
    workbook size limitation in Excel 2013. Thus, I recommend we try the Mr. Bernie's suggestions to import the large CSV file.
    1. Use VBA to read the file line by line and split/examine the import file in sections. If you have further question about the VBA, please post your question to the MSDN forum for Excel
    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/home?forum=exceldev&filter=alltypes&sort=lastpostdesc
    2. Use Excel 2013 add-ins. Power Pivot and Power Query. For more detailed information, please see the below articles: 
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/9243a533-4575-4fd6-b93a-4b95d21d9b10/table-with-more-than-1-048-576-rows-in-power-query-excel-2013?fo
    http://www.microsofttrends.com/2014/02/09/how-much-data-can-powerpivot-really-manage-how-about-122-million-records/
    Please Note: Since the web site is not hosted by Microsoft, the link may change without notice. Microsoft does not guarantee the accuracy of this information.
    Thanks
    George Zhao
    Forum Support
    Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    If you have any feedback on our support, please click "[email protected]"

Maybe you are looking for