FLV are 5 times larger than original wmv

Is anyone experiencing there FLV files to be 5 time larger in
file size than the original wmv file? I made sure the dimensions
are the same, audio the same, video settings match and all. I can't
figure out why its so dramatically larger.

It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

Similar Messages

Converting old CS files to CS5 is creating hugh files-4 to 6 times larger than original. How can I a

I've been trying to convert some old CS files into CS5 files. These are simple files: some text, simple line work, a photo or two (tiff, jpeg or eps) and some simple illustrator art. These files were typically 500k to 800k. The updated files are 3 - 6mg. I tried to start with a new file and copy/paste the text, line work and art and would end up with a file around 2 - 3 mg without photo. What do I need to do to end up with a normal size file?

It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

Kevin If you don't understand don't try to take the discussion offline via private message. Other that have the same problem will not benefit if taken offline here is you PM.
Hi,
Thanks for your response to my question. What is the best way to adjust to match resloutions of pictures/photos, etc in PSE 12. I am trying to layer photos and selections from photos but when I cut and paste, sometimes I get this HUGE image that doesn't even come close to fitting on the screen.
Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin
You need to understand pixels better know what is going on when you do things. All pixels are not created equal. Some have better quality the others.
When you have a camera that take captures 3000x2000 px for an image and you have a good lens and exposure setting you wing up with 6,000,000 quality pixels for your image.
If you resample that image for the web to fit within 300x200 pixels you wind up with a 60,000 high quality web size image. Or a high quality image that will fit on your display at its resolution. The images resoultion setting is meanless for displays use their resolutuin they do not support image print DPI resolution setting. And Displays do not hava a 72DPI resolution.
So when your post processing think about Pixels DPI is meaningless except when you use a unit based on DPI like inches. However also remember Displays do no support the images print dpi resolution. The only time 1" on display equal 1" in print is when the images print resolution is the same as the display you are using. All displays do not have the same resolution/ Most desktop displaye are around 100DPI that is changing and Laptop and tablets can have resolution above 300DPI. So what will nor fit on your displat may well fix on a laptop or tablet.
DPI is actual pixel size 100DPI pixels a 1/100" x 1/100" = 10,000 per square inch 300DIP 1/300"x 1/300" 90,000 px per sq inch.
The same number on pixels image on a 300dpi display is 9 time larger on a 100Dpi display. What may not fit one your low resolution display may fit on the same size high resolution display for the display displays more pixels then your display can.
If you resample that 300x200 web size image to back to a 3000x2000 pixel image for print you wind up with 6,0000,000 lower quality pixels.
Though the 300X200 pixels image was a high quality web size image much of the original 6,000,000 image quality was reduced in the 300x200 px image. Much of the detail you had in the original 6,000,000 pixels image was discarded in the process. The new 6,000,000 pixels image was made only from a 60,000pixel image they were not captures using a camera exposure. The camera had the actual real detail in front of it to capture. All the computer had were 300x200 pixels it has to add details for the larger image and it does by interpolating the 300x200px image.
Preserve the pixel you get from your cameras. They are the highest quality pixels you will ever have for your images. Every time you resample an image up or down in number of pixels you loose some image quality. Not one of the original pixels remain intact you wind up with a totally new image created by interpolating the old image. Do not save the new image over the old image and loose your good high quality pixels.

Exporting a jpg is 3 times larger than CS3

Clearly I'm missing some setting - I'm opening jpgs that had been created with FW CS3 and immediately saving it (for troubleshooting purposes). Optimize Quality is set to 75 | Smoothing 2. The file is fully 3 times larger than it was prior to save. I've exported instead of the straight Save and have the same result. I've lowered the Quality to 60 to make sure I was invoking the compressor ... the file lost 2k.
So a 260x83 bitmap moves from an acceptable 5k to 17k (or 15 with unacceptable compression level)?
Can't be right. Not even Adobe could have mucked up FW this badly.

Not too certain about this, but the increase in file size might be due to additional meta data in the file - that easily adds ~10kb to the file, so it might explain what you are seeing. But as far as I am aware, the save for web functionality in FW should remove meta data.
Use RIOT (radical image optimization tool) (win) or ImagOptim (mac) to check if this is the case or not, and remove the meta data.

SAP BW Key figures displayed 100 times larger than it should

Dear all,
I'm using Crystal Reports 2008 SP2 und SAP Intetegration Kit X3.1 SP2 to create a report upon a BW Query (7.01). Several key figures are displayed exactly 100 times larger than it should. Only the formatted value is displayed correctly.
Is anyone familiar to this phenomenon?
best regards,
madadm

Solved:
the regional settings of the client machine have to match the servers' .This have been hard times...

Imported video files are 7-8 times larger than the original!!!

I really like iMovie but the thing is iMovie imports my video files (taken in my AVCHD Sony Handycam HDR-CX11E) with an approximatly 7 times larger file size than the original file size of the movie. And still I have chosen the option "Large - 960 x 540". I really don't know if there is any solution to this "problem". I would be thankful for anyone who could give me a solution.
Regards

The best way to find out is to try it. Take a small but representative sample, do some edits, export as H264, then reimport, do some edits, export again.
I expect some degradation, but here mostly the problem may be the quality (or lack thereof) of the analog originals.
Also, let me clarify: QT movie per se means nothing in terms of quality or compression. The QT is a container format. Inside it can be a high quality, high bitrate ProRes 4444 or a highly compressed H264, or a number of other things.
In FCP X, when you export a Master File, you get to decide in the settings which codec to use (e.g. Prores vs H264), but the output file will still be a QT file.

Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you
Nick

Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)
Thanks
Nick

My jpeg file sizes are much larger than they used to be.

Just recently the file sizes on my .jpeg files have become excessively larger than they used to be just a week or so ago. Where I used to go almost a week to need to archive to DVD a bunch of saved images, I've now got to save to DVD almost daily.
For example, a 300x300 pixel image which shoud be about 32 Kb reads 383 Kb in the finder. I'm not doing anything to these images, just draging and droping.
Where I used to get 7 K files on a DVD, I'm now getting less than 2 K files to each disc.
Any thoughts on what's changed and how to fix it?

What App & JPEG compression rating are you using, some apps can reduce file size by dropping colors for instance...

Imported iMovie video 6 times larger than .mts files on camcorder

I would like to be able to watch all my HD video footage on my iMac, but when imported using iMovie it takes up FAR too much hard drive space.
I am importing video from a Canon Vixia AVCHD camcorder (HF21). The native .mts files on the camera are about 10GB per hour (~ 6 hrs of footage on the 64GB internal memory), but when I import the video using iMovie, they expand by around 6 times, to about 60GB per hour (that is, the .mov video files saved in iMovie Events folders are HUGE, 60GB per hour, or ~ 1GB per minute).
This seems too large to be practical; the first 6 hours of import took up ~360GB of storage - and that was only the first time I'd used the camera and imported footage! So I only get less than 2 full uses and imports of the camera's memory before my 1TB iMac is completely full (not including what is already on there).
I have started "Archive All" to save the video footage in it's raw format, but now the footage is not usable or watchable on the iMac unless I go and import it again with iMovie - where once again it expands to 6 times it's size.
Is there a solution to this? How can I make all my HD footage watchable on the iMac, retaining the full quality raw HD of the video, but not take up more than 1/3 of my 1TB hard drive each time I import from my camcorder?
If I import to iMovie, then export as a smaller file, surely I will lose quality?
I have heard it can be done with Final Cut, is that correct?
Thanks a lot.

Thank you AppleMan1958 for that link to your earlier post. I have spent way to many hours tonight trying to work out why Nanna's Christmas video clips off her new JVC suddenly filled my HD. iMovie warned me that an hour of video at full would take 40GB. Gross underestimate lol.
I have decided I will import as large just to off stuff to DVD or quicktime format for the family then dump the iMovie Event in the trash and do an archive of all the footage to keep it for future editing. I'm lucky to have an external raid as the backing up of externals just starts becoming expensive in redundant backup drives.
I would be very cautious of using DVD's for backup as I have seen them fail too easily after a only a few years.
wardyf18 - My understanding is that importing on the Large setting gives you 960x540 resolution which isn't as good as the 1280x720 supported by older Apple TV's but I havn't noticed much difference in recent testing.
I believe the newest Apple TV will support 1080 on H.264 format but if you are playing MPEG4 it only supports 640x480 anyway. As a lot of my older stuff was converted to MPEG4 for iTunes so I now realise most of what I watch is only 640x480
mvmum - after hours of reading tonight I have come to the realisation that a Mac actually handles the editing of HD video pretty well but ADVHC is just not a good editing codec. Converting a 'group of pictures' codec to a 'full frame' codec is going to give you a large file on any system. Unfortunately a 'full frame' codec appears to definately be the best way to edit and anything that edits a 'group of pictures' codec like ADVHC has other quality problems.
Thanks all for your discussion and advice.

Copy of drive larger than original

I'm replacing a 750GB HDD with a 960GB SDD. Using the finder, I copied 713GB of data from the old drive to the new, empty drive. Strangely, the data is using 897GB of space on the new drive. Thinking that it may have been a finder-copy issue with a large chunk of data, I erased the new drive and used third-party software to mirror the data to the new drive. The result was the same. Disk Utility finds no trouble with either drive. Is there an explanation for this?

It is also possible that compressed files on the original were decompressed during the copy to the SSD. That is a total guess.
NOTE: When I switched my Macbook Pro from an HDD to an SSD, I used Carbon Copy Cloner to move all my data. That way I knew I had a bootable SSD that including all my data.
You could also go with SuperDuper (free for a full clone), or Applications -> Utilities -> Disk Utility -> Restore specifying the original HDD as the source, and the SSD as the destination. Carbon Copy Cloner does have a 1 month demo period where "All" its features are enabled, so you can even use CCC.

When opening an image in Photoshop CC, the file appears at a size many times larger than the file I'm opening: a 1mg file opens as 9mg. This started in the past few days. What has happened?

My files have suddenly started opening in Photoshop CC in a much larger size: a 1mg file will open as 9mg, for instance. The more layers I add, the more the multiplication until I'm up so large the program closes down. This never happened before and I don't know if I've changed something by accident or what. HELP!

Let's try something easy. Reset your preferences.
If in Windows, close Photoshop, then double click the PS icon to start it.
Now very quickly hold down the Ctrl-Alt-Shift keys, and you will see a delete settings dialog where you would answer "Yes".
See if that fixes it, if not...we will need more information:
Adobe product and version number
Operating system and version number
The full text of any error message(s)
What you were doing when the problem occurred
Screenshots of the problem
Computer hardware, such as CPU; GPU; amount of RAM; etc.

Are graphics larger than 300x300 possible in GarageBand enhanced podcasts?

I would like to migrate away from Podcast Maker and start using GarageBand. However, as far as I can tell, GarageBand limits enhanced podcast graphics to 300x300 pixels. This is not even nice on modern iPods. Is there a hack to make larger graphics possible? I am looking for at least 640x480 which is possible with Podcast Maker. The button to not force graphics to 300x300 seems non-functional as graphics end up at this size regardless of the status of that check-box.
Thank you,
Roger

I used to have the setting on my iPod set to have the backlit display on during our graphically enhanced podcast too. The only problem, and the reason I switched it back, was that it causes the battery to go down a lot faster. So that is something to consider too. But as far as I know, the user has to change that setting themselves.

The web pages are coming larger than my screen and I have no scroll bars?

when I open firefox the web pages exceed the physical screen even the icons are flowing outside the perameter. I no longer have a scrol bar to scroll. My google chrome is fine so it is a firefox problem

It is possible that the screen is too wide or too high and that the scroll bars fall off.<br />
Open the system menu via Alt+Space and see if you can resize that window.<br />
If that works then close Firefox to save that setting.
See also http://kb.mozillazine.org/Resizing_oversize_window
........<br />
Window sizes and positions are stored in [http://kb.mozillazine.org/localstore.rdf localstore.rdf] in the [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_Firefox Profile Folder].
See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Corrupt_localstore.rdf

How to reset Firefox Health Report uptime stats which are too larger than what it should be

I'm on the latest Firefox beta channel and up to date to the date.
In about:healthreport page, I'm seeing a wrong count of time under "time open": http://i.imgur.com/XdlB17q.png
This is almost 4 years that I can't keep firefox open in this month (I'm sure I didn't waste 4 years of my life on the web either).
Is there any way to reset this count ? Seems like a really useful feature but not working fine for me.
Thanks in advance!

I have no idea how Firefox works out the date used in FHR . No doubt Tyler will comment later.
I would hazard a guess that it may look at the date of creation/modification of the files possibly the date of modification of the profile folder. Whatever it is doing it may be doing it wrong. (I don't think Tyler has filed a bug yet. He probably works Monday to Friday
I guess it would do no harm to look at your file dates. See if any look wrong and as if they may explain the unexpected time period.

Why is the downloaded app 3-4 times larger than the size listed in the App Store? The settings show Angry Birds go at 316 mb and the app desc size is 93 mb; the FB is about 3 times larger also.

Found this trying to manage the storage on the ipad. Just wondering if the file size listed on the App Store is a zipped file. If so, isn't that misleading?

Thank you... just what I thought. Be helpful to know the expanded size to manage available space...

FLV are 5 times larger than original wmv

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for