Getting WMA-like file sizes

Is there a straight answer for why Apply won't support WMA? Is it a "proprietary/license" issue where apple doesn't want to pay Microsoft royalties? What is it? I mean, they choose to handle some pretty obscure formats. WMA is a pretty standard format. What's the deal? Any chance of them supporting it in future releases on iTunes?
By the way, based on my testing, converting to 96kbps MP3 or 80kbps AAC hits pretty close to the 128kbps variable bit rate WMA file sizes. I haven't been able to tell a difference in quality, but then again, I have a day job while I'm listening so it's not like I'm really trying to hear a difference here.
If anyone knows a more scientific way to know what a 128kbps VBR WMA translates to in an iTunes compatible format then please reply here.
Dell Windows XP Pro
Dell Windows XP Pro

i'm having the exact same problem!
does anyone know how to fix it?
the calculate all sizes seems to be disabled each time finder is relaunched.

Similar Messages

Getting adobe form file size at run time

hi,
ya i need the adobe form file size at run time. my requirement
is to get xstring and file size of the adobe form. adobe form format is already in xstring format, but how to get the file size.

Hi,
try the following:
DATA lv_file_content TYPE xstring.
DATA lv_file_size TYPE i.
lv_file_size = XSTRLEN( lv_file_content ).
This will give you the file size in Byte. For KB, just divide by 1024, and once more for MB.
Kind regards
Ole

Exporting to PDF - How Can I Get A Small File Size When Using Lots of Vector Art?

I am trying to create a small PDF file for e-book distribution purposes. My Indesign pages contain a variety of photographs, vector icons and vector maps.
A publisher in Britain who does similar books on a Mac using Creative Suite was able to create a 22-page document very similar to mine (similar icons, graphics, density, etc) that is only 2.84 mb, a small fraction of the file size that I'm getting! I've included a sample page of his below, which is a low-res jpeg, but on the original PDF all of the text and images (except the jpeg cliff background) are super sharp - they look like vectors when you zoom in. I've also included screenshots of his PDF export settings.
I don't know if he's exporting directly out of Indesign, but my best guess is that he is.
My vector-based icons, numbers and maps are bloating my PDFs considerably. When I remove them, the Indesign and exported PDF file sizes drop dramatically. For the life of me, I can't figure out how he got such small PDF files sizes using so much vector art! The PDF graphic compression settings don't seem to include any options for vector art.
My vector art graphics (numbering, icons, maps) are all saved as Illustrator AI files and then placed in Indesign as linked graphics. My best guess as to why I can't achieve smaller PDF files is I'm either doing something wrong with the vector graphics themselves or handling/exporting them improperly out of Indesign.
I am using CS4 for PC and am on a Dell Machine running Windows 7.

I am trying to create a small PDF file for e-book distribution purposes. My Indesign pages contain a variety of photographs, vector icons and vector maps.
A publisher in Britain who does similar books on a Mac using Creative Suite was able to create a 22-page document very similar to mine (similar icons, graphics, density, etc) that is only 2.84 mb, a small fraction of the file size that I'm getting! I've included a sample page of his below, which is a low-res jpeg, but on the original PDF all of the text and images (except the jpeg cliff background) are super sharp - they look like vectors when you zoom in. I've also included screenshots of his PDF export settings.
I don't know if he's exporting directly out of Indesign, but my best guess is that he is.
My vector-based icons, numbers and maps are bloating my PDFs considerably. When I remove them, the Indesign and exported PDF file sizes drop dramatically. For the life of me, I can't figure out how he got such small PDF files sizes using so much vector art! The PDF graphic compression settings don't seem to include any options for vector art.
My vector art graphics (numbering, icons, maps) are all saved as Illustrator AI files and then placed in Indesign as linked graphics. My best guess as to why I can't achieve smaller PDF files is I'm either doing something wrong with the vector graphics themselves or handling/exporting them improperly out of Indesign.
I am using CS4 for PC and am on a Dell Machine running Windows 7.

Would like file sizes in windows to recalculate always

Friends:
I'm using OS X 10.4.10 and would like the size of each file to update on any window I open. As it stands only some folders have sizes. Ive got my View options set to calculate sizes for all windows, but when I return a few days later this option seems to turn off. How do I lock it on permanently? Can I go in the terminal and do some permanent hack?
Thanks knowledgeable ones!
Migs

i'm having the exact same problem!
does anyone know how to fix it?
the calculate all sizes seems to be disabled each time finder is relaunched.

Get file size value for export to .txt

I have created a script to export metadata using the XMP Script Library. I am able to get all the properties I need except one: image file size (not dimensions, but the size of the file itself in MB). File size is not included in any XMP namespaces and it isn't in any TIFF tags as far as I can tell.
Getting the file name is very straightforward: exportFile.write (thumb.name), but I can't find any method to get the file size.
Any ideas would be a big help.
Thanks in advance,
Greg Reser

var sels = app.document.selections;
alert(sels[0].spec.length);
This will get you the file size in bytes, then you can divide to get Mbytes.

Best way to get small file size/best quality- starting from Logic?

I am in the process of embedding 3 mp3's into a PDF to submit as a portfolio. The PDF also has text, and two scores included, and with the 3 embedded mp3's it can't be more than 10mb.
So my question is: When bouncing a project out of Logic, what is the best method for getting the smallest file size, but retaining the best audio quality? And once it's out of Logic and it is an mp3 or other type of audio file, is there a best format for compressing it further, and still maintaining the relative quality?
I bounced out the three projects into wav's. Now I am using Switch for Mac to compress them down to smaller Mp3's. I basically need them to be about 3 mb each. Two of the recordings sound OK at that size, but they are just MIDI(one project is piano and string quartet, the other is just piano- all software instruments. The recording that combines MIDI and Audio and has more tracks (three audio tracks and 10 Midi/software instrument tracks)and sounds completely horrible if I get it under 5 mb as an mp3. The problem is that I need all three to equal around 9mb, but still sound good enough to submit as a portfolio for consideration into a Master's program.
If anyone can help I would really appreciate it. Please be detailed in your response, because I am new to logic and I really need the step by step.
Thank you...

Hi,
user5716448 wrote:
... Trying this
REGEXP_SUBSTR ( 'cus_postcode'
, '(\d+)\D*$'
, 1
, 1
, NULL
, 1
'cus_postcode' (inside single-quotes) is the 12-character literal consisting of c, u, s, underscore, p, o, another s, t, another c, another o, d and e. It doesn't contain any digits.
If you want to use a column called cus_postcode, then lose the single-qutoes.
>
where postcode for example DI19 1RI
Would expect 1 - first number after space starting from right but getting blank.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks

How can get the library items total file size

Hi All,
I want to get the total file size of the library and count how many file in library.
would I use getItemsRequest can get them?
or have another ways to do that?
Thank You
Jimmy

Sorry, I don't have any ideas.
Just so you know, the document management support is the lowest priority.
There are not any active enhancements planned for document management.
We added some support in 12.0.x for WebAccess, but there is none planned
further.
Preston
>>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 2:26 AM,
jimmyng25<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you, Preston.
> I will try to find other ways.
> Would you please telling me if you have any idea?
> I no idea to solve that, thank you very much.
>
> Jimmy

The file size of selected file in input file control is shown as 0 for multiple file selection in Safari 5.1

The file size of selected file in input file control is shown as 0 for multiple file selection in Safari 5.1. If you select single file, then it is able to return file size correctly. However, if you select multiple files, then the file size of each of the selected file is always returned as 0 from javascript. This works correctly in Safari 4.0 but it does not work in Safari 5.1.
How do I get the correct file size in Safari 5.1 ?

If you want to post (or send me) a link to the lrcat file, I'd take a look at it for you, and give you a break-down what's consuming all the bytes. But it might be fun to learn how to do that yourself (e.g. using SQL). I use SQLiteSpy, but other people have their favorites.. (or you can use a command-line client if you prefer..). One way: just run "drop table "{table-name}" on each table then look at filesize (do this to a copy, not the real thing).
Anyway, it's hard to imagine keywords and captions etc. taking much of the space, since even if you had 1000 10-character words of text metadata per photo average that still only adds up to 117MB, which isn't a substantial portion of that 8G you're seeing occupied.
Anyway, if you've painted the heck out of most of them and not cleared dev history, that'll do it - that's where I'd put my money too...
One thing to consider to keep file-size down:
===================================
* After reaching a milestone in your editing, take a snapshot then clear edit history, or the top part of it anyway (e.g. leave the import step), using a preset like:
Clear Edit History.lrtemplate
s = {
    id = "E36E8CB3-B52B-41AC-8FA9-1989FAFD5223",
    internalName = "No Edit",
    title = "Clear Edit History",
    type = "Develop",
    value = {
        settings = {
            NoEdit = true,
        uuid = "34402820-B470-4D5B-9369-0502F2176B7F",
    version = 0,
(that's my most frequently used preset, by far ;-})
PS - I've written a plugin called DevHistoryEditor, which can auto-consolidate steps and reduce catalog size - it's a bit cumbersome to use a.t.m. but in case you're interested...
Rob

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

Incredibly strange file size discrepancy only appears in image files (jpg, gif, png)!

I'm creating a bunch of banners for google ads, yahoo ads, ...etc in Photoshop on my Mac OS!
The .gif files of these banners appear to TRIPLE in size when on the MAC (>150KB), but when transferred to windows; the real file size shows correctly! (<50KB)
It is not a result of the base2 vs base10 discrepancy since the difference in size is simply too big, and it only happens with files created on Photoshop on my Mac.
The reason I know that windows is showing the correct size while my Mac OS is displaying the wrong size, is that the file gets approved by google and yahoo ads, even though Mac OS shows that it surpasses the size limit (50KB) three times over!
This isn't an isolated incident either, all image files created in Photoshop on the MAC continue this weird behaviour! However, files downloaded from the net appear to be consistent on both operating systems!
One example is the attached screenshot:
Explanation, please??

Geez, sorry I offended you Mr. Jobs (incarnate)!
You came in here with a three ton chip on your shoulders. Did you really expect sunshine and puppies in return?
No, I expected useful help, and I got it from Jeffrey Jones. Thanks again Jeffrey!
I mean, when you move or upload it, it loses this data association anyways!
To a drive which doesn't support Apple's AB tree structure (NTFS, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), yes. To another HFS+ drive, no.
What about uploading the file to the cloud?? Does it lose this association or not?? And does anyone really care about the data in the Resource fork?
This "Resource Fork" means nothing to the file owner, only to the OS and the Drive. Therefore, it shouldn't be added to the total. Period. Because its not part of the file, its part of Apple's tree structure! This is really a simple concept, not sure why you are bending over backwords to defend a clearly stupid oversight from apple!
There's no reason to force me to use the command line to get the real file size of a GIF! There's just no excuse for that!
If an OS is saying it is fetching file size information for a single file, it should do exactly that! Not add hidden Resource Forks that are part of the OS's internal workings
OS X is fetching the file size. It's file size, not the way a different OS would report it.
There is no such thing as it's file size. A file size is a file size, accross all platforms, on the cloud, wherever!
A GIF file should have the same file size whether its on windows, linux, unix, darwin, freeBSD, or anything else. The only time its weight should vary is in outer space!
That is why I'm surprised that they are breaking simple UI Design rules.
The User Interface has nothing to do with the file structure of a drive.
I don't care about the structure of the drive!! Neither should you, neither should the average user!
A good UI should NOT concern the user with this! The average user doesn't care about these Resource Forks, and will never try to view them, therefore, there is no logical reason to add up their file sizes to the total size of each file, and then to make things worse, hide that fact! That only creates confusion, and it makes it so much harder for a designer like myself to view the REAL file sizes of my image files! Now, whenever I'm on my MAC, I will have to run command line scripts to be able to see if my GIF files (that I work on EVERYDAY) meet the file size quota, because Mac OS adds up hidden files that I have no use for and gives me the WRONG file size!
Let's say this again: when you select a file and click get info, you should get the info for the file you selcted. Nothing more, nothing less! I don't care if the file structure creates an entire colony of hidden files, they should be completely hidden to me, and if not, the Get Info dialog box should at least give me two sizes, one is the REAL file size, and the other is the added up file size for the Resource Fork as well (although I can't think of any good reason why it should add up the Resource Fork size anyways)!
do you think it is at all logical, that when you select 300 or so files, and click Get Info, that it open 300 windows at once each showing separate information for each file? Or does it make a lot more sense, intuitively, to get the total tally of all the files selected added up, without having to hold down shortcut keys when clicking them to do so?
Yes, it is logical because that's what you, the user, told the OS to do. You wanted the Get Info data on 300 individual items. I don't know about you, but I avoid the menu bar as much as possible (your reference to avoiding shortcut keys). Command+I will always give you singular Get Info dialogue boxes.
No, that's not what I told the OS to do. I selected 300 files cumulatively, therefore, I should get the cumulative info for all the selected files. That's just common sense. Every other OS seems to get this!
And I'm hard pressed to find anyone who has found a use for having 300 get info boxes open at the same time. Therefore, that shouldn't be the default.
Will you start defending apple's decision to stick with the one button mouse for all these years depriving us from the all important context menu as well?? There was absolutely no good reason to do that, just as there is absolutely no good reason to do this!

When bouncing- what's best method for smallest file size/highest quality?

I am in the process of embedding 3 mp3's into a PDF to submit as a portfolio. The PDF also has text, and two scores included, and with the 3 embedded mp3's it can't be more than 10mb.
So my question is: When bouncing a project out of Logic, what is the best method for getting the smallest file size, but retaining the best audio quality? And once it's out of Logic and it is an mp3 or other type of audio file, is there a best format for compressing it further, and still maintaining the relative quality?
I bounced out the three projects into wav's. Now I am using Switch for Mac to compress them down to smaller Mp3's. I basically need them to be about 3 mb each. Two of the recordings sound OK at that size, but they are just MIDI(one project is piano and string quartet, the other is just piano- all software instruments. The recording that combines MIDI and Audio and has more tracks (three audio tracks and 10 Midi/software instrument tracks)and sounds completely horrible if I get it under 5 mb as an mp3. The problem is that I need all three to equal around 9mb, but still sound good enough to submit as a portfolio for consideration into a Master's program.
If anyone can help I would really appreciate it. Please be detailed in your response, because I am new to logic and I really need the step by step.
Thank you...

MUYconfundido wrote:
I am in the process of embedding 3 mp3's into a PDF to submit as a portfolio. The PDF also has text, and two scores included, and with the 3 embedded mp3's it can't be more than 10mb.
So my question is: When bouncing a project out of Logic, what is the best method for getting the smallest file size, but retaining the best audio quality?
The highest bitrate that falls within your limits. You'll have to calculate how big your MP3's can be, then choose the bitrate that keeps the size within your limit. The formula is simple: bitrate is the number of kilobits per second, so a 46 second stereo file at 96 kbps would be 96 x 46 = 4416 kbits / 8* = 552 kBytes or 0.552 MB. (*8 bits = 1 Byte)
So if you know the length of your tracks you can calculate what bitrate you need to keep it within 10 MB total.
I consider 128 kbps the lowest bearable bitrate for popsongs and other modern drumkit based music. Deterioration of sound quality is often directly related to the quality of the initial mix and the type of instruments used in it. Piano(-like) tones tend to sound watery pretty quickly at lower bitrates, as do crash and ride cymbals. But don't take my word for it, try it out.
And once it's out of Logic and it is an mp3 or other type of audio file, is there a best format for compressing it further, and still maintaining the relative quality?
You can only ZIP the whole thing after that, but that is just for transport. You'll have to unzip it again to use it. And no, you cannot compress an MP3 any further and still play it.
I bounced out the three projects into wav's. Now I am using Switch for Mac to compress them down to smaller Mp3's.
That is silly, you could have done that in Logic, which has one of the best MP3 encoders built in. And how good encoders are will especially come out at bitrates around or below 128, which you might be looking at.
I basically need them to be about 3 mb each.
So, one more scrap of info we need here: how long are those three pieces, exactly? I'll calculate the bitrate for you - but please bounce 'm directly out of Logic as MP3's. They will very probably sound better than your WAV-conversions made with Switch.
!http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/4996323899_071398b89a.jpg!
Two of the recordings sound OK at that size, but they are just MIDI(one project is piano and string quartet, the other is just piano- all software instruments. The recording that combines MIDI and Audio and has more tracks (three audio tracks and 10 Midi/software instrument tracks)and sounds completely horrible if I get it under 5 mb as an mp3. The problem is that I need all three to equal around 9mb, but still sound good enough to submit as a portfolio for consideration into a Master's program.
Length of the piece? And does the .Wav bounce you have sound OK?

Crazy File Sizes - Help!

Hello,
I have a multi-part question about multi-page PDFs. Two things are happening to me quite a lot with Acrobat and PDF creation, and I need some help figuring out what's going on.
Thing 1:
I will receive a bunch of scanned music, each page scanned separately as a separate PDF ... and each one sent in its own separate email, resulting in 30-40 emails at a time ... from another user. Each PDF page that gets sent to me tends to be somewhere around 500K. My task is to use Acrobat to combine the incoming scans into a multi-page PDF. The actual creation of the multi-part PDF is no problem. Getting Started > Combine Files into PDF is a straightforward move, and that's what I do. But the resulting multi-page PDF is HUGE. I've tried optimizing, I've tried saving it as a Small PDF ... neither of those things do much at all. I'm seeing file sizes around 5,000K by the time I'm done with an average-sized multi-page instrumental part (about 5-6 pages of music).
A big file size isn't necessarily a big deal, but I have to distribute these multi-pagers via email (that is the only electronic format that doesn't feel like alien technology to the people on the distribution list) and sending these big files in emails tends to be problematic. Slow downloads, file size limits exceeded, etc. ... this big file size thing is really annoying.
I suspect the massive file size is caused by how the initial user scanned in the pages of music, but I can't control what the initial user does; I just have to work with what arrives. Is there any way that I can fix this?
Thing 2:
I noticed that when I used the basic set-up at Fedex/Kinkos and, using a scanner and Acrobat, scanned 8.5 x 11 copies of some music as a black and white document, combining my scans into one PDF as I went and optimizing them, a file that would have been around 6,000 K coming from the other initial user and being paged together by me ended up being 568 K using this method.
When I used my camera as a impromptu scanner and used the CamScan application to take a picture of a document and save it as a PDF, I was getting pretty ridiculous file sizes, 400-500 K a page. Sam issue as with the PDFs coming from the initial user.
What is going on? Is there something in the scanning method that affects how big the file is? Is a flatbed scanner and Acrobat the only way to get small PDF sizes?
Thanks for any help you can provide...

yes it dus thanx so much.. man i dont no y i didnt see that in the first place :p i must be blind

File size and quality of images from iphone to mac to exported jpeg

there is a lot of good info on this forum regarding jpeg compression, iphoto export etc but i want to confirm a couple things..
i have 'my photo stream' enabled so that i can upload my iphone photos to my mac and my plan is to use iphoto (im just starting to do this)...
yes, i understand that the 'image' taken by iphone is stored as 'data' and some of that data (and potentially pic detail/quality) can be lost/reduced/discarded when you ask an application to export a .jpeg with a high, med, low compression applied.
am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
e.g. i can export a 'full size' jpeg from the iphone and i see a 3.2MB file. if i look at that photo in Iphoto and export original.. i get a 3.2MB file. i assume that the original image was only compressed once?.. when it was originally stored on my camera roll in the iphone?
If i just want to use iphoto to add tags, description... i am required to recompress the image into a file and my choice of MAX compression yields 10MB (which is more space but no more detail vs HIGH compression which yields a 1.9MB file (which most likely is less image detail). there is no way to get the same original 3.2MB amount of data but with the appropriate text fields added into the new jpg file ? would it be much better, at least in theory, if i could get the goldilocks file size, ie just enough compression to have a similar file size as the original ... seems like my choice is 50% less or 300% more ?!?

am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
Yes, as long as you have iPhoto's iCloud preference pane configures as follows:
You're be getting the full image file, pixel dimensions, etc. which is essentially a bit by bit copy of the photo on the Phone.
When you add tags and other metadata and export the file out of iPhoto as a jpeg with the checkboxes selected to include that metadata there will be some image compression. However, if one chooses High or even Medium JPEG Quality one will be hard pressed to detect any image degradation unless printing very, large prints or otherwise displaying the image at a very, large size.
I ran a test on a 1.4 MB photo from my iPhone and compared the original to two exports, one at High and the other at Medium JPEG Quality and got these results:

Show image file size on desktop

Hi im a Graphic Designer using Mountain Lion and would LOVE for images on my desktop to show more file info like file size other than the name and extension - is this possible? Its purely for a quick glance rather than having to right click and select get info... 2 clicks too many for me

Command + J on an item on the desktop.

SaveForWeb file size difference of scripted versus manually created

I've got a VB script that uses Save For Web to make thumbnail images from a folder of larger images. Most perplexing is the file size difference of these thumbnails using the script versus making them one by one manually.
The thumbnails are 180x120 pixels. Using Save for Web from the file menu to manually create jpegs (50 quality, optimized, no profile, no progressive) the typical resultant file sizes are 9 to 14 KB. Using the script, the file sizes end up from 20KB to 30KB! Additionally, if the original file has any metadata (caption, contact info, copyright, etc) the manual process strips all the metadata out except the copyright notice, which is fine. Using the script however, all metadata remains intact!!
Can anyone explain why this is occurring? I'd sure like the smallest file size possible. Am I missing a parameter in the ExportSaveForWeb options?
Here's this save section of the code:
     Dim sfwOptions As New ExportOptionsSaveForWeb
     sfwOptions.Format = psJPEGSave
     sfwOptions.Quality = 50
     sfwOptions.Optimized = True
     sfwOptions.IncludeProfile = False
     SaveFile = OutputFolder & ImageNumber & ".jpg"
     docRef.Export SaveFile, PsExportType.psSaveForWeb, sfwOptions
Thanks in advance for any insights and guidance.
(BTW, I get a similar file size disparity with javascript too although they end up a tad smaller than the VB script, go figure...)
Tom
PS - The VB Scripting Guide has the wrong name for the Export Document method. It is not "ExportDocument" but rather, simply "Export". Hopefully this tip will save someone hours and hours of frustration and confusion ;-)

Eureka, I found the issue! Now pass the ********...
In the options in the Save for Web window (the two small gray arrows next to the Preset drop down list), on one of the panels there is a checkbox to Preserve Metadata. This was unchecked. Apparently, it was not seen as unchecked when running the script yet behaved accordingly when I did a manual save. Checking this box and clicking apply, run a manual save, then unchecking the box and clicking apply appeared to "reset" it to not save metadata (other than copyright info) either when saving manually or then using the script.
Case closed.

Getting WMA-like file sizes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for