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!

Similar Messages

  • Screen Capture File Size Discrepancy

    Can someone please explain to me why the screen capture (cmd-shift-4) generates such huge files?
    I made a screen capture which was saved to my desktop as picture-1.png. Examining the file's properties showed that the file size was 1.03MB.
    Next I opened the file in Photoshop, used Save For Web, and set the file type to PNG-24. This file, which in every way is identical to the original except for file size is only 11kb.
    Why is the OSX screen capture larger by a factor of nearly 100?

    Just by way of illustration, when I take a PNG screenshot of my 23 inch LCD I get a 4.4 MB file. But only if the desktop picture is all that is showing.
    By contrast, a PNG screenshot of the same screen with OSX windows covering the desktop is only 360KB. Why the discrepancy?
    PNG compresses using a raster notation that works at its best when continuous identical pixels cover some horizontal stretch. Just like Mac OSX windows. Noncontinuous colored pixels are very hard for PNG to compress, since there are very few identical colors. This is why photographs should be compressed with JPG (which uses a color averaging scheme) and web animations with PNG.
    The OSX screenshot format uses 32 bit PNG, which is 16.7 million colors. So if you are reducing the bit depth to 24 bits, that is a huge reduction in filesize. Especially if the 24 bit format converts colors to identical runs, which compress better in PNG. I am talking about color variation you can't even see. That would explain the "factor of nearly 100" you noticed.

  • Strange colour spots (red & green) appear after RAW files converted to JPEG, anyone know how to fix it?

    Strange colour spots (red&green) appear after RAW files converted to JPEG, anyone know how to fix it? Thanks.

    I use "Export" function to convert the picture from RAW format to JPEG format, resolution 240 pixels per inch. Strange red dots appeared in the area supposed to be dark grey, as per the picture below. The red colour does not appeared in the original RAW picture when viewing from Lightroom, only exist in the JPEG it created. Any ideas how to fix this? Thanks!

  • File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

    I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so here goes. The specific application (PS) is irrelevant, I think. This is about why an app shows one file size & the Finder shows a different file size. In this case, it's a huge difference, due to the file being an image.
    I imported into PS CS, from a CD, an original image, which the Finder shows as 269.4 MB. The file format is TIFF, and the bit-depth is 16, not 8. The Finder shows it as a "TIFF Document." Now. I did a Save As and edited that as a master image file. So, I have two files: the original and the master.
    I substantially cropped (deleted) pixels in the master file. So, at the same 16-bit depth, the master file should be smaller in size than the original. Right? However, the Finder shows the file to be 433.6 MB in size! Photoshop shows the file to be a more realistic 185.8 MB in size. Why is the Finder showing such a huge file size? Why is the Finder storing 247.8 MB more than I need? The Finder shows this file as an "Adobe Photoshop TIFF file," so there has been a change in format. The file is flattened; no layers, etc., are involved.
    One clue could be that the Finder is storing the larger file size to accommodate Photoshop. If one multiplies 185.8 MB by 3, the result is close to the 433.6 MB figure. The 3 stands for the three color channels (red, green, blue) of each pixel (data element) in the image.
    The original image, however, is stored correctly by the Finder. Photoshop and the Finder agree on the 269.4 MB file size. If the above scenario were true, the Finder would be storing the original file at three times the size as shown in Photoshop. In other words, there would be consistency in what the Finder is doing.
    I suppose I could just ignore the discrepancy, but I have hundreds of images to process, and I don't want to have to go into PS every time to get a true reading of file sizes. The Finder should be accurate in doing that.
    I may be in the wrong forum re: Photoshop, but here I think I can find some expertise re: the Finder, since the Finder's storing procedures are in question, to my mind. It's definitely an app/OS interface problem, as I see it. Simply, I edit a file downward in data, save it, yet the Finder saves it at a larger size.

    ...do you think a lot of cloning & healing brush might have added to the file size, even though I cropped the image?
    Yes, depending on your History settings. The more you work on an image, the more history it accumulates. The more different states and sanpshots you save in the History palette, the bigger the file gets as you work on it, because you're storing (within the file) complete information about the file's state before and after every individual change you make to it. What I don't recall is whether that all gets saved to the file in a Save As, or whether the history is flushed each time the file is Saved.
    I should warn you that I am by NO stretch of the imagination a PS expert. I was still using PS 5.0.2 until last February, when I upgraded to CS2 (knowing it will be years before I have enough hardware horsepower to run CS3). I'm a rank beginner with CS2, and if someone else wants to jump in here and point out that I'm all wrong, it will be no surprise to me. And because I never used CS, I don't know whether what I'm describing in CS2 is even relevant here.

  • HDD reads almost full but when I add file size it only 50%

    When I get into on my HDD its says it has 70GB used & 4GB unused, but when I go into finder to try to delete unneeded files I only see about 35GB. Where's the other half? I figured it illed it because I recently captured video, but I can find it to delete it. It there a way to list all files in the HDD drive by file size of do a search by file size (lets say 1GB & up)?

    Did you empty the Trash?
    Your Mac needs adequate hard drive space to operate normally. How full can a drive be before it's too full? There is no hard and fast rule that says “X” amount or “%” of free drive space is needed. A low amount of RAM requires more drive space for Virtual Memory’s swap files.
    Problems from insufficient RAM and free hard disk space are discussed in this link
    http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/lackofram.html
    Look at these links.
    Where did my disk space go?
    http://www.macfixitforums.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Forum38&Number=770243
    Download & use WhatSize described in this link or Disk Inventory X @ http://www.derlien.com/
    Freeing space on your Mac OS X startup disk
    http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/freeingspace.html
    Amazing Disappearing Drive Space
    http://www.pinkmutant.com/articles/TigerMisc.html
    Increase HD Free Space
    http://macosx.com/forums/howto-faqs/275191-how-easily-increase-hd-free-space-lap top.html
    How to free up my disk space
    http://www.macmaps.com/diskfull.html
    Where Did My Disk Space Go?
    http://www.macfixitforums.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/770243/site_id/ 1
     Cheers, Tom

  • Does anybody know why my film says the file size is only 96kb?

    Does anybody know why my film says the file size is only 96kb (when right clicking on my mac and selecting get info) surely it should be in megabytes its a 50 second film with a few effects on it. Have i maybe clicked on something and changed it all - i moved it to the trash accidentally and then moved it back to my desktop could this be something to do with it?

    So, just to confirm, when you double-click on the 96kb file, it opens and plays your video?
    If you accidentally created a shortcut ("Alias" in Mac terms) it would likely be larger than 96kb but to check, does the icon have a tiny black arrow in the lower left corner? When you right-click or CTRL-click on the icon to bring up the menu, is there an option near the top to "Show Original"?
    If you have another hard drive avaialble, try copying the file to that and re-confirm file size.

  • Is there a practical size limit on JPEG format image files?

    I have noticed when working with Photoshop v7.0 on Windows XP that, when creating a JPEG format image file from a very large scanned image (more than 800 Mb, maybe), the .jpg file will usually be saved on disk at any of the possible compression ratios available, without any reported error, yet when the saved file is re-opened, an error is reported - something along the lines of "missing or corrupted end of file marker" - and the image cannot be loaded.
    If before saving the original image is substantially reduced in size, e.g. by reducing the resolution of the image, a viable JPEG format file can be created, which will subsequently load successfully, though technically with data loss.
    This appears to happen only with JPEG format files - PDF format files can be saved from the original image at similar JPEG compression ratios, without error on reloading.
    I do not know if this also occurs with any other Photoshop versions.  I am working with Adobe Photoshop v7.0 on Windows XP, although we are preparing to upgrade to CS (which version I don't know) in the near future, for different reasons to those which are detailed above.
    Does anyone know if there is a technical explanation for this behaviour?  Is there a file size limit for writing viable JPEG files (which Photoshop does not report as an error when exceeded)?
    Thanks

    Chris Cox wrote:
    Where did you get the idea that we weren't doing something about it?
    that's what I gathered from "JPEG cannot [...] in Photoshop (code difficult to replace)".
    But if you say this is in the works right now, that's good news indeed.
    Chris Cox wrote:
    And where did you get the idea that posts get deleted? (other than SPAM)
    Are you sure you're reading the same forum as the rest of us?
    That's what happened:
    The content you posted below was reported for abuse and removed by our
    moderators:
    Subject: Re: Is there a practical size limit on JPEG format image files?
    Posted: 4/29/11 9:11 AM
    Anyway, you gave an honest answer on this technical issue, Chris, and that's what counts.

  • Reduce File Size and Optimise PDF both increase file size

    Hi All
    I have exported a pdf (our college mag) at smallest file size from Indesign CS4 for online use. The problem is the resultant file size is a little under 19Mb. Using both or either Reduce File Size or Optimise functions simply result in an increase to 22Mb. The document is packed with images however I would have thought one or both of these processes would have helped reduce the file size to a more manageable download file size.
    A pdf is also produced to go to print so simply compressing all images prior to imcuding them in Indesign is not a preferable option - this would mean creating two separate Indesign documents, something which I would rather avoid if possible.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated as always.
    The file reside here if anyone cares to take a look http://www.ayrcoll.ac.uk/index.php?name=UpDownload&req=viewdownload&cid=11&orderby=dateD  It's the latest release (September 09)
    Thanks
    Colin

    You might want to do an audit of the PDF (button in PDF Optimizer) and try to figure out what the various parts are. It shows 58% is content streams (sorry, but I am not sure what that is), 26% is overhead, and only 12.7% is graphics. Since you are not storing bookmarks and such, you might want to try going back to ID and printing to the Adobe PDF printer for a comparison. It may be one technique is more efficient than the other.
    When I used the optimizer, the file did get larger. When I used Reduce File Size, it got slightly smaller. The key may be in figuring out what the various parts are from the audit. You might try copying one page of ID to a new document and play with various versions - different fonts (all were embedded and that is probably best), variations on graphics, etc. That is all I can suggest since I would simply be playing with different ways to produce the document and looking at what is causing the bloat. When the Images are only 12.7% and the fonts less than 1%, there is something going on to produce the size, and those 2 are typically the killers. I would mention tags that tend to bloat, but you do not have any (normally used for assessibility).
    You might want to try some of the preflight checks to find issues. I did the transparency check and got 170 instances in 22 pages. Flattening the page may help. There were some pages that seemed to be very bad. However, I did not get a big file size reduction. I did not get a lot of improvement by printing to a new PDF either. Certain pages seem to be part of the bloat problem. The print took a long time around pages 11 and 22.
    One troubleshooting technique would be extract pages to separate files and look at the details of each page to see what is causing the issue.
    Need to go. Good luck.

  • Why suddenly will Adobe not print a PDF file but will only save as .prn file I cannot print

    Why suddenly will Adobe not print a PDF file but will only save as .prn file that my computer will not recognize?  This is a new problem never experienced before.  I have tried updating all versions of Adobe Reader but still no results.

    Turn off the "print to file" option.

  • Hi,my system is Mac OS X v 10.5 Leopard the problem is that when click on a file, immediately a box appears around the file and the title of the file is read !so how is it possible to escape from the voice?Thank you for your advice

    Hi,when click on a file, immediately a box appears around the file and the title of the file is read !so how is it possible to escape from the voice?Thank you for your advice

    Turn off Voiceover!
    System Preferences/Universal Access

  • Open a File Dialog Box to browse through image files

    Hi all
    I need to develop a code to open a File Dialog Box to browse through Image Files in Oracle 10g.
    Once the Image File is selected i need to save the file in a Table Column in the Backend Table.
    Please help me.
    Thanks
    Nakul Venkatraman

    Hi
    Thanks for your prompt response on this.
    I came across a Sample Form File which would allow the User to browse through files from local PC.
    Following is the code :
    declare
    dirname varchar2(255);
    v_filename varchar2(255);
    begin
         message('1');
    tool_env.getvar('E:\', dirname);
    message('2');
    dirname := dirname || '\project';
    message('3');
    v_filename := get_file_name(dirname,NULL,
    'All Files (*.*)|*.*|' ||
    'JPEG Files (*.jpg)|*.jpg|' ||
    'Bitmap Files (*.bmp)|*.bmp|' ||
    'TIFF Files (*.tif)|*.tif|' ||
    'CompuServe Files (*.gif)|*.gif|' ||
    'PC Paintbrush Files (*.pcx)|*.pcx|' );
    message('4');
    if v_filename is not null then
    read_image_file(v_filename,'ANY','pp_foto.foto');
    end if;
    end;
    The code is written inside WHEN-BUTTON-PRESSED Trigger.
    When i run the form it is not opening the dialog box.
    Please help.
    Regards
    Nakul

  • File Size Discrepancy

    I hope somebody can help me! I have a Quicktime self-contained movie which in the "Get Info" option says that it's 2.26 GB, but in the Quicktime "Show Movie Info" option it says it's data size is 55MB. Why the discrepancy?
    Power Mac G5 Dual 2.3 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    I don't understand. Do you mean the higher figure is it's actual file size?
    If I assume both of the above readings were in fact taken using the same file as the source (i.e., you did not use the original source file for the first measurement and a final converted file for the second), then yes, that is exactly what I mean. I don't know how you measure the size of a file, but I take it to be the amount of space required to store the file on a hard drive. Now it is possible that a file can be corrupted and contain many "empty" or "unused" data blocks. So I cannot rule out this possibility here. If you have reason to doubt the "file size," simply try copying it from one hard drive to another and see if both copies require the same amount of space for storage.

  • Vault (external) file size Versus Aperture Library (internal) file size discrepancy?

    Using Aperture 3.3.1 (all my images are Referenced). I created my first vault on an external hard drive. The Vault.apvault file size is 32.8 GB. My Aperture Library.aplibrary file size on my iMac hard drive is 81.6 GB. So I am wondering if I have a full back-up in Vault or not. Seems like a large discrepency in file size. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

    Do any Images that you don't expect show up when you filter "Photos" using the Rule "File Status" with the argument "Managed"?
    If not, then close Aperture and repair your database.  Instructions are on the Apple Aperture trouble-shooting page.
    Does that make any difference?

  • IPhoto DB file size discrepancy

    I had my macbook pro stolen, but a week before I backed up my iPhoto DB 15.7GB file using Finder to copy/paste the file to an external drive. I copied the backed up iPhoto DB file to my new Macbook Air, but now iPhoto is missing a large amount of pictures. When I launch iPhoto now, it says I have 923x pictures using 4.3GB. I am lost as to how I can recover the remaining 11.4GB and why they're not being displayed. What's interesting is that I used iPhoto Library Manager Rebuild option and it rebuilt my DB to a new file and that DB is only 5.04GB. This makes more sense and proves I'm missing 11GB+ of photos. Any assistance and guidance is greatly appreciated!

    Depress teh option key and launch iPhoto - use the select library option to select the library on the EHD and see if iPhoto will open it
    You can go to the EHD and reight click on the iPhoto library there and show package contents - are the photos in the masters folder  (look - do NOT change anything) - if they are not then you need to have another source for them
    For the future copy and paste is NOT a good way to work with the iPhoto library - it is best to drag it to the new location to be sure that an exact copy is made
    LN

  • Photoshop file size Discrepancy

    Hey Guys.
    I have a photoshop file which while editing states what I believe is the flat/layered file sizes down the bottom left of the screen of 116.7M/255.4M.
    But when I save the file Finder shows the file size as being 1.53GB.
    Is this normal? What am I missing? See below screen grab

    The size in Photoshop is pretty accurate.
    But it has nothing to do with file size.
    Please read the documentation again.
    Files are compressed, and different file formats will compress differently, and the amount of compression is very much related to the image content.
    That's why Photoshop never displays file sizes except for estimates in the JPEG and the Save For Web dialogs.
    The sizes displayed in Photoshop's status bar and info palette are the size of the document in memory, or the flattened size of the image (uncompressed).

Maybe you are looking for