Image Processor quality settings / file sizes

Hello,
I have been searching around and am coming up empty handed, looking to find out how to get large images (fullscreen web slideshow, would like the images to be 1024 pixels wide or bigger), and maintain quality, yet not be over 700K. Here is an amazing example - http://lambertgroupproductions.com/canyon/zoominoutsliderswp/images/opportuneFullScreen/05 _opportune_full.jpg - 2500 pixels wide, looks GREAT, and is 248K. Any idea how this is being done?? I've tried everything with Bridge and PS, and even looked at other programs to help reduce the file size without harming the quality too much. What I'm running into is one of two problems - the file looks great but is way too big, or - the file size is okay, but the jpeg quality is so low, it's very grainy / blurry! Even with fast internet connections now, I'd still rather have the photos look good and not force the users to wait more than a few seconds to get all the photos to load.
Any help is much appreciated!
Trevor

In Photoshop use the option to Save For Web (Photoshop / File / Save for Web).
Inhere experiment with the settings. I made a sample I set to 2500 pix wide, bicubic sharper, jpeg Low and Quality 10. The saved file only had a size of 450 kb.
I can't show that sample here in 2500 pix because this site only accepts 450 pix wide images to insert but this file here demonstrates a bit more what I mean. I have set this in SFW at 450 pix wide and low jpeg 10. The result is a file of only about 20 kb in size, not suitable for enlargement but just to show you their is still a bit of quality while only 20 kb of file size:
When setting jpeg High and quality 60 in SFW you end up with around 100 kb and a very nice quality. If you want to check the 2500 pixels edition (size of around 450 kb, and looking very good) you have to download it yourself using this link:
http://we.tl/q7UQP0cXeC
(send via We Transfer, a free upload and download service). It will be available until 26 may 2013 before it is automatically deleted from their servers. Or drop me a private message so I can mail it to you personally

Similar Messages

Reduce image quality (and file size)

Is there a simple way to reduce the quality of all backgroung
images ? (there are all bitmap images, about 3 MB each of them)
I imagine that by reducing the image quality, the file size
will be less huge...
But I wasn't able to find a way to do that...
(the option about JPEG quality in project/preferences has no
effect, because all background images are bitmap... )
Any idea is welcome !
Valérie

Hi Valerie
I have been doing some research on this -- the issue of file
size (relating to both .cp and .swf) crops up a lot on this forum,
so I wanted to find out which were the critical factors relating to
images.
My findings show that there are two critical factors:
-- Slide Properties: Quality (High, Standard, JPEG,
Optimized)
-- Format of original image file (used for slide background
or inserted image object)
To summarize the results of my testing:
Slide Quality
Changing the slide quality from High
to Standard or JPEG makes little or no difference to the size of
the .cp file but can *significantly* reduce the size of the
.swf
This is an especially useful way of
dealing with the very large .swf file sizes caused by importing PPT
slides
A .swf consisting entirely of
imported PPT slides with complex backgrounds may be reduced to less
than 10% of its original size by changing the quality setting for
each of the slides to JPEG and using a JPEG image quality setting
of 75%.
Format of original image file
For complex images such as photos,
the best image file format to use is (oddly) .bmp -- although it
results in a larger .cp file than other file formats (such as .jpg
or .png), it generates the smallest .swf output.
The benefit of using the .bmp format
is less marked if you have set slide quality to Standard instead of
High, but it can still cut the file size of the .swf output by up
to 50%
For slides using a quality setting of
JPEG, there appears to be no difference in resulting .swf file size
between .bmp or any other image file format
A final comment: it is interesting to compare the size of the
.cp and resulting .swf for different Captivate projects. There is
typically an assumption that the .swf file will be smaller due to
compression. However, this is not always the case. For example, I
tested one project that used High slide quality and images that had
been inserted from .jpg files -- the generated .swf file was over 4
times larger than the .cp file. However, when I changed the quality
setting for all slides to JPEG, the .swf file reduced to less than
50% of the size of the .cp file.
I hope this information is helpful -- please contact me if
you'd like to see the detailed test data.
Best regards,
-Matthew Ellison

InDesign Transparency Effects - Problems with Image Quality and File Size

Hello,
We are experiencing new problems exporting InDesign files to PDF.
To summarize, though our largest workflow is to create files for offset printing, we also deliver our work to PDF for mounting on a website so our clients can download directly from the web. Our new problem is Transparency Effects, and creating a PDF that will both have a high quality (or resolution), and be a small file size.
We are working with multiple page documents (24 to 48 pages), and would very much like to work with InDesign Transparency Effects. However, after spending much time testing a variety of PDF types, we are finding there is a radical difference between quality and file size. I was curious if anyone has had these problems, and if there is a simple answer. InDesign is an incredible program that allows us to design on the fly with Transparency Effects, but, if we are going to experience these problems, we will have to eliminate these wonderful tools.
Can you help me or lead me to information online that will help.
Thank you,
Lain

Please don't post in multiple forums. Your question has nothing to do with the PDF language and specifications, but rather PDF workflow or InDesign. I've responded to your other posting and am closing this thread.
- Dov

Animated GIF--Quality and File Size

I'm having a hard time getting a quality image and a decent file size.
Even if I save animated GIFs and open with PE an try to resave them, the motion is choppy and the file size is more than double the original.
For example, the following image is less than 10K and plays quite smoothely, but no way can I duplicate such a simple graphic under 10K:
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/style_images/Borderli-546/ad_banner.gif
It also seems that others can control the duration of frames individually...
Most of my GIFs end up around 300K, which will not be accepted. A compromise of poor quality will also not be considered.
What can I do?
I've tried lowering Dither and colors, but the results are poor. My graphics will not be used if they are so large or of poor quality.
Here is a couple that I made:
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/uploads/post-176-1135532612.gif
http://thequackshack.com/forums/radio/uploads/post-176-1135723565.gif
PSE3, WinXP Pro

Cuc
I am not an animation expert, but I copied two of your examples. On the example you say is under 10K, there are about 35 layers. On your example there are about 65 layers. I'm wondering if reducing the number of layers would get you what you want.
As for controlling duration of frames, I assume you want Frame 1 to be 0.5 second, Frame 2 to be 1 second etc. I think PSE puts a uniform time between frames. This can be adjusted, but it is adjusted all frames. One workaround I've seen is to copy a layer. So if the timing interval is 0.5 seconds, you would have the same image show for 0.5 seconds X 2 = 1 second.
This is about all I know on animated GIFS.

Image processor: "No source files could be opened by Photoshop."

I am also getting a "There were no source files that could be opened by Photoshop" warning when trying to save jpegs of open images (opened from a PDF) using the image processor.
Here is what I'm doing:
1. Open multiple pages of a PDF into Photoshop
2. Run the Image Processor with settings:
- Use open images
- Save to "select folder location" (choose a valid location)
- Save as jpegs
3. Run
And it gives me the warning. How can the files not be opened by Photoshop. They already are?!?

JJ, thanks for the response, and my guess is you are correct. It would be nice if Adobe would change this. My whole intention of using the Image Processor in this case was to "batch save" all the open files. As far as I know, there isn't another way to do that without creating an action or other such nonsense. ; )
At any rate, thanks for your input and explanation. At this point, I suppose the issue is as good as solved.

How do I create a High Quality Image with a low file size???

Dear All,
I am creating an invitation in Illustrator which I then place into photshop to create a JPEG. I want to create a high quality JPEG version of it but with a low file size because I am emailing the invitation. Am I correct in placing the image into photshop or should I export it from Illustrator.
The image is built of of vectors and one JPEG but they are not high in quality.
Can anyone help me please
Thanks
Ben

The image is built of of vectors and one JPEG but they are not high in quality.
For this type of image you would probably be better choosing GIF format (now known for some reason as 'Compuserve GIF'). Taking the number of "colors' down untl it still looks high quality, and anti-aliasing is preserved.

Whcih codec/settings for best quality, smallest file size?

Hi,
This is probably a really frequently asked question, and I apologise for that.
I've been searching for an answer and the only information I can hastily find is at last a year old, some stuff dating from 2008
Forgive me - even though I'm studying media, I have no idea about codecs or the best ratio to use or anything.
Basically, I need some advice over which settings to use on my video. The work needs to be a really high quality, as it will be displayed on a projection screen for an exhibition, but I'm sending it over the internet, so I need a compromise between file size and quality.
One of my tutors has told me that I should always be using the ProRes 422 codec, but when I use that, and export the video in 1080p, it comes out at 3.5GB which is just ridiculous.
It has to be sent off ASAP, as the exhibition is on the 21st.
If anyone has any advice to me, that would be amazing.
Thank you in advance.

Hi, thank you so much for your reply.
It's a college project, and the person we were working with is a Doctor in sound. We had to record environmental sounds and create soundscapes for them. As media students though, we were told to make animations, or videos to accompany them. My video is just some of my photography, with some titles, and an AIF music file. Sound is his thing - he wouldn't know what settings I should use.
The project is in 1080p 25 frame. I asked my one of my tutors, and he told me I was right in exporting it as ProRes 422. I used the Adobe Media Encoder and the youtube setting, which has taken a copy of the file down to 177.5MB and I'm burning a copy of the 3.5GB one on to disk in hopes I can get it there somehow.
It's all a bit vague to be honest. My friend's project is 1080p. I'm pretty sure it's the standard size we use for all our projects. The projectors should be set up to handle it.

Export Settings for best quality, smaller file size?

I have a one hour movie I made of a concert and exported it using Share --> Media Browser --> 720p. It came out great quality but it's 4.4gb's.
I need to figure out how to get that down to about 1GB while keeping 720p. HD movies in iTunes are two plus hours and only 3gb's from what I've seen. How can I use the same compression settings? There has to be a way to compress it a little more, while staying in 720p right?
What am I missing? TIA!

Compression quality really depends on the type of video that you are trying to compress. If the video is full of motion and noise, it will be very hard to reduce the file size through compression without massive loss. Compression is a trade-off. If you reduce the fame size to 480p, you may increase the quality of the video while reducing the file size versus trying to do the same thing at 720p.

Adobe Photoshop CS3 Image Processor not converting files to sRGB Profile

I have been experiencing a problem with Photoshop CS3 Image Processor no longer converting profiles to sRGB. It converts all of the files from Camera Raw to JPEG, but not sRGB as well. I used to be able to batch convert an entire folder of RAW images to JPEG, sRGB through the Image Processor.
My Photoshop CS3 Working Space is Adobe RGB (1998). I need to convert an entire folder of images selected in Bridge to sRGB working space in order to publish a photo album from one of the on-line publishing companies. I can open each individual Camera Raw file in Photoshop and convert each to JPEG, sRGB, but this takes a tremendous amount of time.
The following procedure has worked for me in the past, but for some reason no longer works:
I select the images in the desired Bridge CS3 folder. Upper tool bar, "Tools" > "Photoshop" > "Image Processor". In Image Processor:
Section 1 - ""Process files from Bridge only (11)" Whether or not I place a checkmark by "Open first image to apply settings", it makes no difference in the outcome.
Section 2: "Save in same location"
Section 3 - "Checkmark by "Save as JPEG, quality 12". Also a checkmark by "Convert Profile to sRGB"
Section 4 - Checkmark by "Include ICC Profile"
I replaced my iMac one month ago and reinstalled Photoshop CS3, but this Image Processor problem had been occurring even with my old computer.
Not sure if you need this information:
I'm currently on Mac OS X Version 10.6.4
Processor: 2.93 Ghz Intel Core i7
Memory: 8 GB 1333 Mhz DDR3
I don't know if it's related, Photoshop CS3 on my old computer was running in Rosetta. I don't know if it's running in Rosetta now, the name does not appear when Photoshop boots up. How do I get it to run in Rosetta again?

Heh heh heh. It's always true that we find the answer just after making public our problems, which in turn we did after trying to find the problems ourselves for hours.
Thanks for following up with the answer.
-Noel

Saving images with quality 12 increases size. Why?

A minutely modifyed image saved with quality of 10 maintained its original size (more or less), but saving with a quality of 12 increases size.
I would like to know why?
I'd appreciate your comments.

Because that's how .jpg works. Sizes of less than 10 usually compress your files somewhat, lower numbers resulting in smaller file sizes and more compression, with a corresponding loss of quality. Sizes greater than 10 also use the .jpg compression algorithm, but they choose less compression, and so two pixels that may have been compressed together at compression 10 may now be separated at compression 11 or 12, resulting in a larger file. (But that doesn't imply an increase in the quality, even at 12 there is still a slight decrease in quality in that the .jpg saved version still doesn't exactly represent what you saw on the screen)
The amount of modification to the photo doesn't really matter in how much the space the .jpg compression takes up.

Best quality, smallest file size

I have a 3.5 minute motion project which includes the opening credits to a video I am working on - how do I go about getting this into Final Cut Pro with the highest quality possible? I am very new to Final Cut Studio, so some input would really be appreciated. The video is already an hour long, and this needs to fit on a 120 minute DVD, so file size is crucial - unless it will be taken care of when the entire DVD is compressed. Thanks!

What is your current timeline format in FCP? Either bring the .motn file directly into FCP (it'll be treated as a QuickTime file) or export with the same codec/dimensions as your timeline.
Then export your timeline from FCP using Export Quicktime Movie... as a self contained or non-self contained and bring it into DVDSP...
Patrick

I have 1920x1080 files to edit in iMovie to show on large movie screen for charity event what is best frame rate and best save option for quality versus file size?

I shoot a lot of HD video of my kid, and at first I struggled to find a good balance between maintaining the full-resolution original footage and having something a little more reasonable and lightweight to work with. For example, even on my one-year-old iMac, I can't smoothly scrub the full HD video clips in the editor -- but if the clips have been 'optimized' to 960 x 540, they're smooth as butter (and still look good enough for almost every output scenario).
If, when you're importing the original footage, you enable the "Optimize video" checkbox, you'll get the lightweight version in your event library, but you won't get a copy of the orignal footage as well. It'll still be on your camera (or wherever else you put it before heading to iMovie), but that's not very helpful.
If you're using iMovie '09 (v.8) or '11 (v.9), there's a decent way to do this that isn't terribly obvious.
So here's what I do:
When importing the original footage, disable the 'Optimize video' checkbox, and select the 'Move files' radio button. This will move the full HD clip into /[selected volume]/iMovie Events/[event title]. (Or you can use 'Copy files' and get the same end result.)
Select the new event in the Event Library in iMovie, and go to File » Optimize Video » Large -- 960x540 (or 'Full,' which is still going to be more compressed than the original HD, but at the same resolution; I find 'Large' to be just fine for my needs, though).
That second step takes the original HD clip that was in /[selected volume]/iMovie Events/[event title] and moves it into /[selected volume]/iMovie Original Movies/[event title], and then puts the optimized version into /[selected volume]/iMovie Events/[event title].
Now you've got a fully organized directory structure containing all of your original HD footage, sorted by event, plus an Event Library full of nice lightweight versions for quick editing and exporting.

Thanks for that info! Even in my time answering questions on iMovie Discussion Group, I never had a good understanding of when and how Optimize Movie came into play. I always would import as Optimized and Large Size and figured that was good enough. But knowing you got much, much more flexibility doing it the way you describe gives me a much better understanding of the different routes you can take into the Event Library.

Image Processor not outputting correct size

It doesn't matter whether I try from Photoshop or Bridge, the result is the same: I'm doing a simple JPEG resize to fit, from 603x603 to 100x100 but they always result in a size of 101x100! What the heck could be going on? I've tried specifying a pixel less i.e. 99x100 but then it actually does it at that size. BTW, I'm running it on an IMAC OS X if anyone has any ideas, thanks.

[email protected] wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether I try from Photoshop or Bridge, the result is the same: I'm doing a simple JPEG resize to fit, from 603x603 to 100x100 but they always result in a size of 101x100! What the heck could be going on? I've tried specifying a pixel less i.e. 99x100 but then it actually does it at that size.
I've seen the same thing happen. It drove me nuts because it was in one of those
cases where the dimensions had to be exact. My solution (because I needed one
fast) was to trim off either a row or column of pixels. Probably not the best I
could have done, but I didn't have much time to work through it any deeper.
-X
for photoshop scripting solutions of all sorts
contact: [email protected]

Picture Quality - Different Files Sizes

Everything is working well on my ATV, but the one thing I have noticed is that small 2 megapixel JPegs taken on a camera 4-5 years back look better than pictures from my new Canon 5D 12.8 megapixel RAW. The pics from my 5D look over compressed and blocky! The source for the all the pics is Aperture.
Does any one have a solution this problem?
Cheers

sounds like aTV use a poor resize algotitme to downsize the pictures with a higher res
i would try to use your photo program to resize the pictures from the newer cam to the same size as the old one to make sure that Atv is bad at sizing the pictures down

Shedding light on export settings and file size

I am trying to learn about exporting images and file size. I have a combination of RAW and JPEG images in my library. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to limit this to JPEG's. I need to export my images, so that I can then upload them to an external photo processing site like Kodak.com. I was going to export versions of my images because I have made adjustments to many of them. I was going to choose the top level preset of "JPEG - original size." For the sake of example, the file that I try exporting this way has a file size (in Aperture) of 1.94 MB. After exporting it (with a DPI of 72) and a color profile of sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (I am not sure what the significance of the DPI and color profiles are either), I get an exported image with a file size of 4.6 MB. When I export the master image, I get a file size of 2.0 MB. I'm completely confused and at a loss as to what is going on here.
Can someone please shed some light on how to go about exporting images so that I can be certain that I am exporting the best quality image possible.
Also, and possibly more importantly, I export image files to sites like MobileMe Galler, Flikr and Phanfare, etc, for the purpose of archiving my images and now I am not sure if the files I am exporting are of the optimal most quality they can be. Do these settings have any bearing on the images that are being sent to my archival folders?
Thanks in advance for any input on this important topic.
Mac

This confusion is because of the way Jpg files handle data. Jpg is a kind of file that compresses data to achieve a balance between image quality and file size. The jpg file that your camera saves to disk is also compressed, that's why the difference in size between a 2 MB jpg and the same image in Raw is for example 18 MB.
Jpg is a lossy compression format, every time you save a jpg some compression is applied, say after editing in Photoshop. Aperture must be reading your jpg masters to export jpg files to disk, so the difference in size should be the compression quantity applied to the newly created jpg file. I could have a 1 MB jpg file previously compressed with a quality level of 7, but if I export it at a compression quality of 10, the file could easily become a 2 MB file. The problem is quality doesn't increase with file size when the original file is a jpg.
Also some files include a preview image inside the file, increasing the final file size. The color profile embedded should't increase size by much, since most camera jpg files already include a color profile embedded (color profiles tells computers to display color consistently between applications and peripherals like printers. sRGB is widely used for images published on Internet).
As for the images you are sending to the archival folder, I would suggest you to export the masters, instead of exporting a new jpg file from an already compressed jpg master.
I know this is a complex subject so I hope I haven't confused you.

Image Processor quality settings / file sizes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for