Graphic size reduction and storage

I am doing a mobile gaming project and I find that the size of my spirtes are taking too big a size for the game.
How can I reduce the size of the png files? I need to have the transparency in my spirtes...
I am using freehand(no graphics background)
And, when i open the jar files of comercial mobile games, I do not see any graphic or music files. I only see CLASS and PAK files. I suspect they hide all the graphics and music files into that file.
I would like to do the same too. Anyone can share with me how can do go about doing that?
Thanks in advance :)

You can create sprite list by adding sprites "line" by "line"
When:
load("big.file")
image1 = Image.create(width_line1,height_line1);
image2 = Image.create(width_line2,width_line2);
xsprite1 = image1.DrawRegion(1 "line" of big image)
xsprite2 = image2.DrawRegion(2 "line" of big image)
Sprite1.create(xsprite1)
Sprite2.create(xsprite2)
PS. Got idea? But I must warn you, what you can loose transparensy couse method image.create() bring you image with white background.

Similar Messages

  • Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

    I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
    Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
    I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
    I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
    I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
    Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
    I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
    Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution)  that can not be changed.  Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
    Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file).  If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off).  In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
    So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up.  There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space.  The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution.  All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
    Hope this helps.

  • Changing the Measuring Tool Graphics size (arrows and leaders)

    I am measuring a drawing and I can't see what I need to click on because the measuring tool graphics are so large. Please see the images. Is there a way to make the graphics smaller, thinner, etc. so that I can actually measure something with a bit more accuracy?
    In the pictures below I am trying to measure a wall footing and in the second image the rectangular footing is covered by the arrows when using the measuring tool. In the third picture, you can see what I am measuring and how covered up the rectangular footing is in the previous image.
    I want to annotate the drawing with the measurements so I don't want to turn off the leaders and annotation. If someone has an answer, i would really appreciate the help. Thanks in advance.
    Mac OS 10.7.5
    Acrobat X Standard

    I am sorry if I have wasted anyone's time. I have actually now found a solution.
    Right clicked the page when the measuring tool was selected and chose 'change scale ratio'. However, I would have never thought that it was a ratio issue...
    Thanks a lot, anyway.

  • How do I change the font and graphic size when using Firefox

    I have recently switched from Windows to Mac. When resizing the window in Mac the font and graphic size do not follow -- they stay the same size and only more "white space" is created by increasing the window size. How do I get the graphics and fonts to adapt to the new window size or at least make the whole image bigger. I am using Firefox 3.6.12 and Mac OS10.6.5. Thanks for the help.

    You can select to zoom the full page or only the text: View > Zoom > Zoom Text Only<br />
    Firefox 3 can remember the zoom level site specific.
    See:
    * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Zoom_text_of_web_pages
    * http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.zoom.siteSpecific
    * http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.zoom.full

  • XPS 8500 compatible graphic card installations and avoiding video BIOS issues

    I see several threads looking for XPS 8500  video card upgrades that can be used with the stock 460w PSU or upgraded PSU.   However, in upgrading the GPU for this machine, there are some cards that will not be compatible and will result in a black screen.    Even with a proper video card install, an adequate and/or upgraded power supply , the video card fans will be working, but there will be no video.   The problem lies in the BIOS for the XPS 8500 motherboard not recognizing the video card and this is a known issue that has carried over from the XPS 8300 to the current XPS 8500. 
    There have been vidoe BIOS upgrades from some card makers to correct this problem for certain cards, but there are a lot of legacy cards that won't work.  Safest bet would be to use a newer card with the PCI 3.0 spec.
    In the sticky in this forum a link to the current Dell drivers shows the following video cards that are supported with drivers for Windows 8:
    Video
    GeForce GT 545 | GTX660 | GTX555 | GeForce GTS450 | GeForce GTX 590 | GeForce GTX 460 | GTX680 | GeForce GTX 580 | GeForce GTX 560 Ti | GTX 480 | GTX690 http://downloads-us.dell.com/FOLDER00753042M/3
    Geforce GT 620 | Geforce GT640 | nVidia GT640 http://downloads-us.dell.com/FOLDER00736734M/3
    AMD HD7570 http://downloads-us.dell.com/FOLDER00746666M/6/
    Radeon HD 6990 | Radeon HD7870 | Radeon HD 6950 | Radeon HD 5870 | Radeon HD 6770 | Radeon HD 5970 | Radeon HD7770 | Radeon HD 5770 | Radeon HD 6870 | Radeon HD7950 http://downloads-us.dell.com/FOLDER00749652M/3
    Since these are Dell OEM cards that are being supported, there are also manufacturer specific issues where a given video card model may or may not work depending on its configuration.  Whereas a XFX HD 6870 will work in the XPS 8500, the same card made by another manufacturer may not work.
    Please keep this in mind when doing GPU and PSU upgrades and hopefully BIOS upgrades in the future will address these issues.
    It would be helpful if you have a SPECIFIC card that does or doesn't work, to post the manufacturer and complete model number in this thread.
    OS and Bios information also would be helpful, and if you are using the Dell PSU or an upgrade power supply.  Specific model please!
    Edit:
    Please include following and any other helpful information
    Graphic card manufacturer and model number:
    Bios:
    Operating System:
    Power supply manufacturer if not Dell 460w PSU :
    Compatible:  Yes or No
    Original card with system that worked:

    I just installed a GTX 970 into my Dell XPS 8500 (Win 7 Pro-64bit)  with out issues on the first try.
    These were the parts:
    Updated my XPS 8500 Motherboard Bios to version "A12" while waiting for my parts to arrive
    EVGA NVIDIA GTX 970 Superclocked Graphics Card (EVGA 04G-2974-KR)
    EVGA SuperNOVA 750B1 750W Power Supply (PSU) (110-B1-0750-VR)
    Note, that I choose the "Back Blower" version of the card rather than the double fan ATX 2.0 version.  That's because the case design of the XPS 8500 doesn't have "Great" circulation.   The "Reference" style  (Solid video card shell with a single fan -- that draws air in from the case in... and vents out the back of the PC) is better suited to the XPS.
    Putting a new Powersupply into a Dell XPS 8500 is a bit of a trick.   All ATX Power Supplies have about the same Height and width  (150mm or 5.09" wide)  and (86mm or 3.38" high).    The problem is the Depth.   How deep into your PC can it reach  (extending towards the back side of your CD/DVD).   Don't forget, you have that tiny sunken  USB/Headphone jack -- midway on the case top.  That port has  cable poking on the underside:
    I did some measurements, and realized that the MAX PSU depth that would work would be about 165mm or about 6.5".     That's tricky because I wanted a 750w plus power supply, and its REALLY, REALLY hard to find a good power supply under with less than (180mm / 7.09").   And, that wouldn't fit.
    You should also note that the PSU has is recessed, so you actually have to "Drop it in" about an inch from the back of the case, and then slide it back.  The PSU also lower than the motherboard (when the case is on it's side), so you can't angle it very much: 
    To get it in, you may have to push some of the cables from the "Top Breakout Port" flat against the "Top inside portion" of the case to give you a little room.     Dropping the PSU into place  took me about 4 tries (lowering it... then seeing which cords were in the way... pulling it out... rearranging and retrying) to get it to slide home to the back of the case.    After it was in,  I waited until I had everything wired before putting in the 4 PSU screws to mount it permanently into place.
    I scoured every 700+ Watt,  80+ certified PSU carried by Newegg (as of 12/1/2014).   Then, I cross checked the newegg specs for each prospect with the manufacturer's website for verification.  I only focused on PSU's with at least 8 reviews, and then only if they averaged a 3.5 rating  (unless the low ratings were for frivolous things like rebates).
    After looking up the specs on over 200 PSU's  (over a 5 hour period),   I only came up with 5 potentials:
    EVGA SuperNOVA 750B1 $69.99
    RAIDMAX RX-1000AE 1000W $119.99
    SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W $139.99
    CORSAIR AX series AX760 $159.99
    Coolmax 1200W ZPG-1200B $282.35
    I'm not certain that I absolutely NEEDED to put in a new power supply.  The Dell shipped with a 470 watt PSU.   The EVGA GTX 970 is rather efficient  (compared to other cards) and apparently only draws about 175watts.    The calculations were close because I have the SSD, 3 hard drives and a DVD.   In the end, I elected to switch out the power supply for $69.99.   The machine is 2 years old, and has been on 24/7 for almost 26 months.    Plus,  (as I discovered later) the new PSU has a bigger fan and vents heat more efficiently. 
    When hunting for a PSU,  I want to reiterate why you MUST ensure that any PSU you get is 165mm or less in depth, and you can't tell anything by looking a a particular series.   Many manufactures have single models within a series that is just "smaller".   You have to look at the specifications of each individual model.      If you can find PSU around 150mm (5.09" deep) you will have a much happier install experience, but you may have to settle for something in the 500-650w range.
    Using EVGA PSU's as an example --  All the EVGA models over  700 watts (except the one I found) are (180mm / 7.09in).    Only the Supernova 750B1  is 165mm.   As a trade-off,  the 750b1 is rated at "Bronze" efficiency rather than "Gold" or "Platinum".   This isn't bad, and may makes sense.  The ratings only deal with "Power Efficiency" not quality of build.   Compared to the OEM Dell, these are in a different class.    I suspect that the 750B1's  "BRONZE" rating is what allowed the smaller form factor.   Most high-wattage CPU's use the increased depth for larger heat sinks and heat dissipation.  The bronze runs slightly warmer (compared to  Silver/Gold/Platinum -- but not to the origional PSU in the Dell) , but it allows the required  15mm reduction in size that lets it fit into your case.   The quality of the PSU is still more than adequate for my needs, and the price can't be beat.
    Now for installation.   I won't say it was EASY to get the PSU into the case.  I had to disconnect all my SATA power and cables.  I had to bend the cables on the ATX Case Top a little bit, and I had to be very patient reconnecting.  
    I also had to reroute the wire that ran from the top of the case to the Mini-Card Slot (?).   I honestly didn't know what those were  (they sit behind the Rear USB Plugs on the mother board), and they snap on with tiny little clasps like the snaps on Jeans.  I tried not to disconnect them (becasue they looked fragile) but I accidentally popped them off.   Thank goodness, they fasten back on.  There are even little arrows above each terminal (one solid black, one an outline to indicate white) so you get them back on in the right order:
    I found it handy to stuff many of the cables in the empty "Floppy drive" spot below the CD Drive.   I also found that I had to plug the cables in a certain order -- because some cables blocked off access to the terminals for others.   (The SATA/Power for the CD Drive, for example is right behind the PSU.  I had to do those first, because I'd never get my fingers in there if I saved that for last).  
    Now for the pre-install preparation.   I'd updated the BIOS to A12 and downloaded the installer for the GeForce drivers before switching out my hard ware.  
    The A12 Bios driver's are a couple of years old, but they allowed detection of my GTX 970.   Although traditional wisdom usually says,  "Don't update your BIOS unless you are trying to solve a problem", I elected to just install the A12.   From my reading,  the only people who seem have had problems seem to be those who didn't buy EVGA cards,  have XPS 8700's (not 8500)  and/or didn't install the A12 bios.  
    Sure, if you read the A10/A11/A12 bios release notes --  none of the fixes cited in the updates say anything about video card detection.    BUT, consider this: 
    "If decision to keep the A09 bios prevents your newly installed video card from displaying the desktop, do you REALLY want to temporarily REMOVE all that hardware JUST so you can install the A12 Bios?  And then, put all that new hardware back in again?"   
    Not me.  I considered the update "Low Risk" considering the alternative.  Plus, I consider the  risk of "Accidental Damage while Handling Hardware" to greater than a potentially frivolous BIOS update.  
    Somebody asked me, "Which version of the Bios did you install?"   It's an old one, and the only one on the Dell site for an XPS 8500 (Early 2012 edition):
    Dell XPS 8500 / Vostro 470 System BIOS
    A12.EXE
    Release date 29 Oct 2013
    Last Updated 31 Oct 2013
    Version A12
    The A12 BIOS update is cumulative (includes A09, A10a and A11), so installing A12 will bring you up to the most recent version (incorporating all the versions in between).  You do NOT need to install any of the interim versions.
    I uninstalled all my old ATI Drivers before I shut down the first time.  I didn't install the Geforce drivers until after I switched out my hardware.  (I just wanted the installer on my desktop -- ready and waiting).
    All in all -- it worked.  The card extends about 2-4" further into the case, but it fits.  The PSU sits about 4" away from the back of the CD, but it fits.   And, it boots.
    I just finished playing "Far Cry 4" on the Nvidia setting at 2560x1080.   The new setting (beyond Ultimate) showed up after I plugged in the card.  I've also been playing Assassins Creed Unity  (Which I picked as my free game with the card -- since I already had Far Cry 4).   Both seem to play 60fps without any issues.
    Because of the fan on the PSU and the video card venting out the back, my machine actually runs cooler now.
    Hope that helps.   My total cost was around $435.  $349 for the card and $69 for the psu (plus tax).
    Final Specifications (Aftermarket Parts in Purple):
    XPS 8500, White Chassis w/19:1 media card reader   (Early 2012 Edition)
    3rd Gen Intel Core i7-3770 processor 3.40 GHz with Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 3.90 GHz
    16GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz
    Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
    256GB SSD SRT enhancement (Boot) -   3TB SATA Hard Drive 7200 RPM (OEM 3TB HD Failed 1yr)
    3 x Western Digital WD4000FYYZ - 4TB Enterprise HD ( 6 Gb/s & 1.2 million hour MTBF!!!)
    EVGA NVIDIA GTX 970 Superclocked Graphics Card (EVGA 04G-2974-KR)
    EVGA SuperNOVA 750B1 750W Power Supply (PSU) (110-B1-0750-VR)
    Integrated 7.1 with WAVE MAXXAudio 4
    16X DVD+/-RW
    Dell Wireless 1703 802.11b/g/n, Bluetooth v4.0+LE
    Kindest Regards,
    Andrew Russell
    P.S. If you are wondering about that weird brace to the right of the  PSU...   I added a 3rd hard drive below the CD Drive.  There are only the "Front mounting holes" , so I got a little creative and straightened out one of the "PCI Mounting Plates" from an old ATX Case.   I bent the section with the screw fasteners with a pair of pliers,  and the bracket as the perfect length to attach diagonally -- as a cross brace to hold the back of the hard drive in place:
    [Edited 12/5/2014 -- Added system specifications and a few more photos]

  • 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

  • Questions on photos and storage

    I have a few questions about photos and storage... If you can just answer one of these, that's fine and thanks for the help!
    How do I see how much space my iPhoto photos are taking on my hardrive?
    I have Time machine which backs up, but concerned that I'm getting too many pictures.  When I do "Get Info" on the hardrive it says 640GB Capacity with 254GB used. I'm assuming that includes all my photos, and that Time machine only backs up and is not the active storage for those photos?
    What is advisable for available GB space on this size computer?
    I have my photos on the hardrive and the time machine, is it also advised to have in a cloud-based storage system to be safe? Or some other place.  Just checking what others do with this.

    1 - it is a really good idea to start new threads with new questions - threadjacking a year old solved thread on a totally different subject will not provide the best coverage and the best answers
    2 - Do NOT uncheck the option to copy imported items to the iPhoto library - it is a really, really bad idea that will create many problems for yo and has no advantages of any sort - see the user tip on file management in iPhoto for more details - iPhoto and File Management
    3 - take the time to learn how to use iPhoto and the concept of using a database for management photos rather than a file based system like you are used to - it is much different and much more powerful - but there is a learning curve and a different thought process
    4 - yes you can always export anything or everything from iPhoto for use on any other system - see the user tip on exporting for details - Exporting From iPhoto
    5 - always remember that you never access your photos directly - iPhoto totally replaces the finder for managing your photos - see the user tip on accessing photos for more details - How to Access Files in iPhoto
    LN

  • Why does PhotoShop CC 2014 crash my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC every time I try to use Sharpen/Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction ??!!!???

    Hi Adobe
    You a have a really wonderful PhotoShop CC product. It's really great, and I know new versions such as 2014 have their teething problems.
    But I am getting really sick of my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC being crashed whenever I try to use PhotoShop CC 2014 Sharpen / Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction.
    This happens both with JPG's and PSD's.
    Please sort your **** out and get some patches out to address this quickly !!
    Chris Tattersall

    Chris,
    It doesn't crash for everyone.  A person could be forgiven for saying, in return, "Please sort out your **** system problems". 
    Trust me when I say many, many problems are caused by the computer system setup not being up to the needs of this cutting-edge graphics software.  Photoshop is heavily dependent on the GPU, and GPU drivers are notorious for having bugs (they're primarily written to run games).
    However, that being said, recent driver releases from both ATI and nVidia do actually work pretty well with Photoshop CC 2014.
    What video card do you have?
    What display driver version are you running?
    If you're unsure how to tell these things, go into Photoshop, choose Help - System Info, copy the data, and post it here.
    -Noel

  • PDF reduce file size filters and CMYK to RGB conversion

    This doesn't seem to be on-topic to this forum, but I'm hoping someone here has the expertise to answer my question. We have some scripts which take a series of press-quality pdfs and use the "reduce file size" filter to prepare them for viewing on the web. We run these scripts on a 10.4 machine, and the filter works very well, reliably reducing file sizes of all sorts of pages.
    When we tried to upgrade the machine, we discovered that the quartz filtering has changed in 10.5 and 10.6. While it's usually an improvement, getting maybe 5-10% better compression ratios, it has become unreliable in that about 5% of my files fail spectacularly -- they blow up to 3, 4, 5, 6 times the original size.
    The other thing that happens is that the 10.5/10.6 filters munge the colors up. I found the solution to this -- in the ColorSynchUtility, make a duplicate of the Reduce File Size filter, and add a Color Management Component called Convert To Profile. This allows me to set a filter that converts the CMYK content to RGB. The problem is that there are about 40 choices of profiles, and it's not at all clear what I should use. Many of them have printer manufacturer's names in them, some say "Adobe", others have cryptic codes (probably referring to various RFCs and schemes). I've tried a couple of the ones that don't look like they are for printers, basically chosen at random. They all produce files of slightly different sizes for the reductions that go well, but on the files that blow up, some filters are better than others. (For example, I have a 5MB page which reduces to 1.4MB with the 10.4 filter, but blows up to 27MB with the "sRGB IE61966-2.1" profile, but only 12MB with the "Adobe RGB" profile.)
    So I have 2 questions:
    1) Is there any way to configure a 10.5/10.6 custom profile so that it behaves as reliably as the 10.4 "stock" PDF Reduce File Size works? It doesn't have to be the most wonderful compression algorithm out there, just so that it never or rarely has a file blow up in size.
    2) For converting press documents to pdfs that are going to go on the web, what is a good "Convert to profile" to use of the 40-some choices on the pull-down menu?

    Cathy,
    You have posted your question in a forum dedicated to the Final Cut Studio application Color. It is a very specialized program to grade (adjust) the color in video/film images. We know nothing regarding PDFs.
    Have you tried posting this on an Adobe support site?
    Good luck,
    x

  • Itunes Library Size / Unlimited Online Storage

    Hi
    - I have a question regarding Itunes library size.
    I have a couple of movies, some music and even TV series on my itunes library and its slowly getting bigger and bigger.
    Is there a certain limit for the itunes library size?
    And if so, does apple support any kind of Online private storage where you can store your music library?

    'iTunes in the Cloud' provides the ability for devices to re-download songs you have already purchased. There is no equivalent facility for movies or TV. There is no charge for this service.
    'iTunes Match' enables you to upload from your own files songs you have obtained elsewhere than in the iTunes Store. The cost is $25 p.a. and there is a limit of 2,500 songs. Again, there is no equivalent facility for movies or TV.
    iCloud does not provide general online storage. While there are other online storage services, if your library is very large you would find it impracticable to upload it even if you could find a service offering sufficient space.
    Hard disks are not particularly expensive and your best bet would be to transfer your library to one.

  • Increase redolog file size - Merits and Demerits

    Hi
    Currently, we are in  9.2.0.7.0 oralce version and having redolog file sizes (Mirrlog and origlog) of 100MB.
    Now we are planning to increase the size to 200 MB so that we could reduce the number of archive log files.
    Can you please let me know what would be the demerits of bigger size in redolog files?
    And also let me know the step by step process how to increase the size of redolog files?
    Thank you

    > I understand what you are saying but in our situation our backup policy is one time online backup  and one time offline backup in a week.....Online backup is on Thu and Offline backup is on Sunday.......
    >
    > In case of system crash if needed we would need to apply archive log files; If we have lesser number of archive logs; recover database would be faster.......correct me if am wrong.
    You are wrong.
    Ok, let's see an example:
    You took your backup on sunday midnight and your DB needs recovery on wednesday.
    Meanwhile you created say, 800 M worth of redolog data per day.
    That sums up to (monday, tuesday, wednesday) 3x800 M = 2400 M that need to be recovered.
    Going with your current setup (100 M redolog size) the largest archivelog file can be 100 M, makes 24 files to restore and recover.
    After changing the redologsize to, say 200 M, you only have 12 files to restore and recover.
    But know what? It's still 2400 M of data.
    Since you will likely not put every archivelog file to its own tape, but rather change the tape each day (just an assumption) or maybe don't use manually operated tapes at all, the little latency overhead in handling tapes doesn't count in to your overall recovery time.
    All in all you still need to feed the same amount of data to the recovery process.
    Apart from this:
    if you're discussing short recovery times, than you'd never perform just two data backups a week.
    You'd make online backups every day - maybe incremental ones.
    You' d use the flashback recovery area.
    An additional thing often overlooked: in many cases the ultimate performance killer for a restore/recovery scenario is not the technology in use.
    It's that when the case is there, the DBA is not sure anymore, what do to.
    He wonders:
    Where the good backups are.
    How to get them back from the 3rd party backup tool.
    How to check them.
    Where to get a different storage system because the original one is broken.
    How to figure out what needs recovery
    How the tools work
    By ensuring that you always master the theory and the how to of restore and recovery - that's how you make it quick and painless (and dataloss-less).
    regards,
    Lars

  • Storage unit types and storage bin types  - Need

    Hi,
    i want to know what is the use of the storage unit type and storage bin type.
    thanks,
    Maxx

    Dear Maxx,
    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp2005vp/helpdata/en/c6/f844694afa11d182b90000e829fbfe/frameset.htm
    Storage Bin:
    A storage type generally contains several storage spaces or slots. These are called storage bins in Warehouse Management (WM). The storage bin is the smallest available unit of space in a warehouse. The storage bin therefore describes the position in the warehouse where the goods are or can be stored.
    Since the address of a storage bin is frequently derived from a coordinate system, a storage bin is often referred to as a coordinate. The coordinate 01-02-03 for example, can refer to a storage bin in row 1, stack 2, and level 3.
    You assign each storage bin to a specific warehouse number and storage type according to its location. You must also assign each storage bin to a storage section.
    You can also define the following additional characteristics of a storage bin:
    Maximum weight
    Total capacity
    Fire containment section
    Storage bin type (for example, for small or large pallets)
    With certain stock placement strategies, the storage bin type plays a significant role in optimizing the automatic search for a storage bin in connection with the pallet type. For example, you can define the WM putaway strategy to place large industrial pallets into a specific large bin type and smaller pallets into small bins.
    Storage Unit:
    In the system, a storage unit record consists of a header and at least one material data record (quant data record).
    The header contains information which is relevant for the entire storage unit and includes the:
    Storage unit number
    Storage unit type (SUT) of the storage unit
    Storage bin in which the storage unit is currently located
    Status, which provides current information about the storage unit
    Specific information about the stock contained in a storage unit is found in the material data record. The material record is already familiar to you in the existing system as a quant data record. For SU management, this information can be managed at the storage unit level.
    The following graphics illustrate how WM handles storage bins with and without the use of storage unit management. For these examples, storage bins are displayed in which 200 boxes of red pencils and 50 boxes of blue pencils are stored. The stock is distributed on two pallets.
    Hope this will help.
    Regards,
    Naveen.

  • 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.

  • Time capsule as back up and storage

    I have a TC with 2 partitions, 1 for back up and one for storage. As of this moment if I'm using the storage partition, the computer can't back up. If the back up partition is open I can't use the storage partition. Am I missing something in the TC set up or is that the way TC works? Any help would be highly appreciated.

    Thanks for the quick response. So what you are saying is that with TM is one thing at a time, roughly.
    As for how I got 2 partitions, I did it with disk utility. When I set up TC, I did it with disk utility. I chose the disk, in this case TC, and in the tabs menu select Partition. It open the set up window and there you make the partitions you want with the size you want, label them, etc. You must open the security padlock with your id to make changes, but I'm sure you know that. I was using a Lacie external disk before for back ups and storage and did it in the same way.

Maybe you are looking for