Finder ALWAYS has to recalculate Applications file sizes - WHY?

I must be missing something simple here. Every time I open the Applications folder the Finder seems to take 2-3 minutes to re-calculate the file size of every app. I don't usually care because they don't usually change.
Any ideas on how I can stop this?
Chet

Any ideas on how I can stop this?
When in List View, press Command + J to open the Finder's List view preferences, and under Show Columns, deselect Size.
This will remove that column and now will display quicker without having to gather that information.

Similar Messages

Finder crashes when opening the application file

Everytime I click the application file it takes 30 seconds atleast to open, then when scrolling through it it freezes mid way down, displays the wrong icons.. freezes for another 30seconds and then finally continues to the bottom.
I have tried repairing permissions among other things without much success..
any ideas?
Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

After doing so, did you perform one of the following tasks?
Log out, then in again.
Relaunch the Finder by choosing Force Quit from the Apple menu, selecting Finder, then clicking the Relaunch button.
If so, I suggest checking the hard drive for any directory errors with Disk First Aid via Disk Utility when booted from your Tiger install disc.
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/repairprocess.html

The amount of memory used for data is a lot larger than the saved file size why is this and can I get the memory usage down without splitting up the file?

I end up having to take a lot of high sample rate data for relativily long periods of time. When I save the data it is usually over 100 MB. When I load the data for post-processing though the amount of memory used is excessively higher than the file size. This causes my computer to crash because 1.5 GB is not enough. Is there a way to stop this from happening withoput splitting up the file into smaller files.

LabVIEW can efficiently handle large files, far beyond 100Mb, provided that care is taken in the coding of the loading/processing routines. Here are several suggestions:
1) Check out the resources National Instruments has put together (NI Developer Zone > Development Library > Measurement and Automation Software > LabVIEW > Development System > Optimizing Applications > Managing Memory), specifically the article entitled "Managing Large Data Sets in LabVIEW".
2) Load and process the data in chunks if possible.
3) Avoid sending the data to front panel indicators, using local/global variables for data storage, or changing data types unless absolutely necessary.
4) If using LabVIEW 7.1, use the "show buffer" tool to determine when LabVIEW is creating extra
copies of data in memory.

Lightroom export file size: why so small? How can I maximize image quality?

My image file sizes are much smaller after editing and exporting through Lightroom. Is it impossible to maintain original file size to preserve image quality? Will this smaller file size have negative impact on prints? Any help is appreciated!

Per Berntsen wrote:
My view on this is somewhat different ...
Jpgs should never be edited, except as a last resort. And it defeats the purpose of working with raw files if you export a jpg, and then edit it.
Agreed. Unfortunately there are many cameras that only output JPEG format files. The camera file (or any other original JPEG file) is your "raw" unedited file inside LR. If you need to send the file to someone else for further editing who doesn't have LR then Exporting with 100% Quality setting might make sense. I say "might" because it's still possible to get very good results using lower Quality setting JPEGs if you only re-save the file one (1) time after further editing. I agree that 16 bit, ProPhoto RGB, TIFF Export files are best for "critical" work and when using 'Edit in Photoshop' from LR.
I suggest taking a look at the JPEG compression image tests on Jeffrey Friedl's Blog. It's a wealth of information! LR's Quality settings range from 0% to 100% or 100 Quality levels. In reality there are only 13 Quality levels, which are the same as in PS.
JPEG QUALITY SETTINGS
Photoshop
Description
Lightroom
0
Low
0-7%
1
Low
8-15%
2
Low
16-23%
3
Low
24-30%
4
Low
31-38%
5
Med
39-46%
6
Med
47-53%
7
Med
54-61%
8
High
62-69%
9
High
70-76%
10
Max
77-84%
11
Max
85-92%
12
Max
93-100%
I use LR JPEG Quality settings of 77-84% for outside printing and LR 62-69% for web posting. I've yet to see any compression artifacts using these settings and I am a pixel-peeper!
Per Berntsen wrote:
If someone gives me a jpg to edit, I always save it as a tiff and convert to 16-bit, to minimize furhter deterioration. I realize that this will not be true 16-bit - no information is added to the image - but my impression is that it will withstand heavy editing better, and not end up with a comb-like histogram.
Why not simply Import the JPEG file into LR and do all your editing non-destructively? There's no need to convert the JPEG file to TIFF unless you need to use LR 'Edit in PS.' Lightroom uses a16 bit/color, ProPhoto RGB, Linear Gamma workspace for all images even when editing sRGB JPEG files.

Quicktime doubles file size - Why?

In Quicktime Pro I open up a dv video file that is one hour, 12 GB. I select Save As and it tells me that to save the file as an .mov will take 24 GB.
Q1: Why is this the case?
Q2: My properties window lists a video track, a sound track, and a track that appears to be the original DV file. Why the redundancy?
Q3: Can I reduce the file size without exporting or using the Save as Reference Movie option?

As a test, I chose SAVE AS on the original 25gb videot, the SAVE AS window told me that the new SAVE AS file would be 50gb!! I'm new to all this, so I have no idea what I'm doing wrong!
To some extent it is a numbers game. In an MOV file the DV audio and DV video are counted separately and added together in both the "Inspector" window and the Finder "Info" window. In the DV file container the "Inspector" window still doubles the file size but the Finder "Info" window only counts a single DV stream. If it Bothers you, either do your trimming in MPEG Streamclip (free) or, if you've already saved some files in MOV containers, then open them in MPEG Streamclip and use the "Save As..." option to re-save them but select the "DV" file container this time. When done, compare the DV file with the MOV file using the Finder "Info" window.

Delete pages doesn't reduce file size, why?

Using Adobe 6.0 on Windows XP. Have 30k file and want to reduce size without doing as print file. 82 pages long. Tried copying and deleting pages 42 thru 82 but file stays same size. Why doesn't it reduce to half the size?

Basically Save As is supposed to remove everything that is deleted and or replaced. Sounds like it is not doing it for you for some reason. The Save retains the old stuff in case you change your mind -- no matter that nobody I know can get the info back anyway. This difference is apparently a hold over from copying how MS did it in OFFICE.
If you can not use Reduce File Size, then try the PDF Optimizer that has more options. You might want to concentrate on the image resolution and possibly color depth from what you are describing. I last ditch effort (not nec. recommended) is to print the PDF to a new one that uses a lower graphic resolution.

Converting PPT to Captivate File Size - why is is increasing?

I have Captivate 7 - 64 bit. I am trying to convert several .pptx presentations. Each presentation is around 60 MB. Strangely, though, when I convert them, they are increasing in size to 320 MB or thereabouts. A few months back we did this same thing with a 70 mb presentation and it only increased by 20 MB. Any ideas on why this would be or how to keep it smaller? I still have to input audio and that is going to make this file huge!
Thanks in advance,
Arthur

Hi there
Are you using the option for "High Fidelity"? I suppose that might account for it. Additionally, what about animations? If you have animations, perhaps that also accounts for it.
If you really want to ensure the file size is as small as possible, you might consider using what I call "The Camtasia Approach" for PowerPoint. You essentially launch the PowerPoint in presentation mode, then record it using Captivate. Just as you might record another application.
Cheers... Rick

Truly weird behavior - file size: why

I used Adobe Acrobat to generate a PDF file from a MS Word document. The file was 283 kB. I opened the PDF, deleted one page, then inserted a single page PDF file (size 33 kB). When this was done, the PDF file size was 308 kB. Fine.
Then, I again opened the PDF file and added a text box to the page I had inserted. The text box contents are "page 13 of 17" and I used the same font that was used in the rest of the document. I also hid the outline of the box. When I saved the file, it's size had ballooned to 1,635 kB.
This, quite frankly, is absurb. 1.3 MB for 15 characters? What's going on? More importantly, can the file be slimmed back down?

You can use the pdf optimizer slim down the file. When you added the text box, Acrobat may have needed to re-embed the font even if it was previously used. I cannot explain why it increased so much, but the pdf optimizer is the way to put the file on a diet.

Image dimensions and file size, why the change?

Here's a Friday puzzler for ya
I just ran a batch on a couple of thousand orthophoto images (RGB + 1 alpha channel geo-tif) to add some typographic information to the bottom of each image. All the files were saved in PS as flattened, standard uncompressed tif. EVERY image is 10k x 10k pixels. After the process we noticed that the new set of files were consistently smaller than the original images! Not by much mind you, but with this kind of spatially mapped imagery it makes you wonder if we are missing anything:
before: 720013700.tif = 381 MB = 390,704kb (400,080,750 bytes), size on disk 381 MB (400,080,896 bytes)
after: 720013700_DRAFT.tif = 381 MB = 390,648kb (400,023,280 bytes), size on disk 381 MB (400,023,552 bytes)
So my supervisor asks "why"? and that leads me here. I thought about a few answers - 1) pixel values changes for white text take up less space? 2) No geo-tif header information written back to the file (that's a separate step after the PS batch using another app), so we'll know about that one. 3) Bit fairies took the 56kb.
Any ideas?

You say uncompressed… So you didn't select any compression at all during the save of the TIFF files? If not, white text replacing image data couldn't have changed the size by itself.
You mentioned geo-tif header information... Was this header in the file before you opened it with Photoshop?
I don't really know the internal format of a TIFF file; perhaps Chris Cox can say something about this.
-Noel

Exported file sizes - why so big

I'm not sure if this question is truly answerable or not.
As some of you may have noticed I was looking into maybe changing over to Lightroom, well after some in-depth analysis I've all but decided to stick with Aperture. The things it does very well cannot compare to what LR has to offer. Organizational tools, like smart albums and projects.
Anyways in comparing the two apps I noticed that the jpg exports of aperture were quite a lot larger then LR. for instance at best quality 1600x1200 a jpg in aperture is typically 1.5meg and LR is 1.1. Not a huge difference.
Now take tiff 16bit full resolution. 35meg for aperture 10 for LR.
Any idea why things appear to be so large for aperture.
Quality of the images is near identical at least as far as I can tell. I went so far as zoomed into both images 200% and compared them in photoshop.
Mike

closed

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.

Acrobat Mac optimizes to bigger file sizes than on Win?

Hello,
I thought I am reasonably savvy when it comes to using Acrobat's PDF optimizer. But recently people have begun telling me that Acrobat Mac seemingly generally produces bigger files than the Windows version. That seems quite unbelievable to me but some preliminary tests do seem to indicate that Mac file sizes are quite a bit bigger than those produced on Windows.
Has anyone heard of this yet or had any personal experience?

So I tried generating the same PDFs on two other computers that have Acrobat 9 Pro. Results were reproduced. The verdict is:
- complex PDF files (that is, containing cross-references, tables of contents, and bookmarks) generated by Acrobat 9.x Pro are roughly 2-5x larger than the identical file generated with Acrobat 8.x Pro.
- different PDF conversion settings make a negligable difference (less than 10% rather than 70-80%).
- using the "Reduce File Size" or "Optimize PDF" option cuts the file size roughly in half, almost always resulting in a "image downsampling mask" warning message, which requires acknowledgement (that is a problem for batch processing or automation).
- adding an Acrobat watermark to the file cuts the file size roughly in half.
- just using Save As to another filename has no effect on file size.
- generating the PDF in Acrobat 9 with links but no PDF bookmarks still results in the inflated file size.
- generating the PDF in Acrobat 9 without any links or bookmarks results in approximately the same file size as the Acrobat 8 PDF with full links and bookmarks.
It appears that Acrobat 9's manner of adding links is what's bloating the files, and in my case it's probably not related to images or image resolution/print quality. It's a shame, because Acrobat 9 seems to have made some improvements to the Review Tracker interface, and a few other bells and whistles which I haven't really gotten around to exporing yet. But unless I find a way to keep my links and the PDF file sizes comparable to what I was getting with Acrobat 8 Pro, it looks like I'm going to stay with Acrobat 8.

How can I bring the file size of jpegs down to ~60k?

Hi. I like to resize my photos to 800x600, 72dpi for upload to the web. Now, my cameras are usually set to maximum resolution, which can include 180 or 300dpi, but I can find no Automator action to change the dpi. Using Preview and/or Graphic Converter I always end up with a file size of ~270k which quite frankly is rubbish - if I do the same process in The GIMP it is typically ~60k with no visible loss of image quality, however The GIMP does not appear to be compatible with Automator.
My question is this: is there any way of making my jpegs ~60k without going below the 65% jpeg quality setting? Is there a free app that I can use? If I had Photoshop I would just use its Actions to batch process files, but I don't so I can't.
Any help would be much appreciated!
iMac 17inch Mac OS X (10.4.9) My other Mac is a Cube

Here's some links I collected.
Resizing Photos for Emailing
http://www.apple.com/pro/tips/emailresize.html
Resize!
http://kstudio.net/
PhotoToolCM
http://www.pixture.com/software/macosx.php
SmallImage
http://www.iconus.ch/fabien/smallimage2/
ImageTool
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/23281
ImageWell
http://www.xtralean.com/IWOverview.html
Resize JPEG Files
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macgems/2006/09/jpegresize/index.php
 Cheers, Tom

Quartz Composer maximum file size for videos?

I'm using the Movie Importer patch and large videos refuse to play. I had no trouble with a 16-minute, 249.6 MB file, but a 7-hour, 534.6 MB file doesn't work. The patch acts like I don't have a file selected at all: it doesn't output an image or a duration value like it's supposed to. I have tried a variety of formats (.mp4, .m4v, .avi) and a variety of frame rates and resolutions. All of my test videos played fine in Quicktime Player (I use Perian, which may explain .avi compatibility... I don't think that's supported natively).
I can't find anything in the docs about file size or duration limits. What am I missing?
Thanks for the help!
Message was edited by: Parker Smith

That is a pretty small file for being 7 hours long.
Have you tried using interpolation and converting the hours, seconds and frames into all seconds or does that defeat the object of the composition? I have a bunch of movies taken with the same camera and some do not provide a timecode. Has been an issue for me for a while. In X.6.+ even apple created comps cause the finder and QC to crash. You wil get a lot more kowledgeable people over at http://kineme.net

WebUtil File Transfer - file size limit

Does anybody know what the file size limit is if I want to transfer it from the client to the application server using WebUtil? The fileupload bean had a limit of 4 Mb.
Anton Weindl

Webutil is only supported for 10g. THe following is added to the release notes:
When using Oracle Forms Webutil File transfer function, you must take into consideration performance and resources issues. The current implementation is that the size of the Forms application server process will increase in correlation with the size of the file that is being transferred. This, of course, has minimum impact with file sizes of tens or hundreds of kilobytes. However, transfers of tens or hundreds of megabytes will impact the server side process. This is currently tracked in bug 3151489.
Note that current testing up to 150MB has shown no specific limits for transfers between the database and the client using WebUtil. Testing file transfers from the client to the application server has shown no specific limit up to 400Mb; however, a limit of 23Mb has been identified for application server to client file transfers.

Finder ALWAYS has to recalculate Applications file sizes - WHY?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for