IPhoto09 Export has both a "JPEG quality" and a "Size" option

In iPhoto09 Export has both a "JPEG quality" and a "Size" option. What is the difference? iPhoto Help does not clarify. Size seeems to constrain the size of photo on screen, and it is not stretchable. 300 dpi no matter what options are selected.

Jpeg Quality is the amount of compression applied to the file.
Size is the dimensions of the shot - length by breadth - measured in pixels.
There is no dpi setting, nor any default setting for dpi. Dpi is sent when you decide the dimensions of the photo when you print.
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

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

I have many photos with file extension of .PDD and that Photo Deluxe 4 no longer will operate in Win 7. How can I open? Next in Elements 11, how do I load and print different pictures and different sizes options on the same page?

I have many photos with file extension of .PDD and that Photo Deluxe 4 no longer will operate in Win 7. How can I open? Next in Elements 11, how do I load and print different pictures and different sizes options on the same page?
Thanks,
Shir

sbmgrams wrote:
I have many photos with file extension of .PDD and that Photo Deluxe 4 no longer will operate in Win 7. How can I open?
See here:
Reading PhotoDeluxe PDD Files

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

Help with saving movie with best quality and smallets size. PLEASE

I need to know how to save my movies with the best quality and the smallest file size. I'll be posting primarily to the web, so I need to keep my file sizes to a minimum, yet I want to retain as best quality as I can. ANY assistance is greatly appreciated!

[email protected] wrote:
> I need to know how to save my movies with the best quality and the smallest file size. I'll be posting primarily to the web, so I need to keep my file sizes to a minimum, yet I want to retain as best quality as I can. ANY assistance is greatly appreciated!
Flash video is becoming popular because you can have a player embedded
in your web page that will stream video that will play on nearly any
browser without additional plug-ins. You can get decent quality at a
decent size.

Making a PDF with an image that has both spot colour channel and alpha channel

Hi I have a logo that was supplied to us as a PSD it has a transparent background, it also has a pantone colour channel. I have made a alpha channel from the transparent background as well.
The graphic looks fine in InDesign (alpha channel selected in the import options), ie the background is transparent.
But when we try to make a Hi Res PDF the result is that the graphic is on a solid white background.
If I go back to the PSD and merge the spot channel with so that it is just CMYK and try again the PDF is fine, but we obviously loose the spot colour.
How do you make a PDF with a transparent PSD that has a spot colour?

You know that annoying response from support staff? "We cannot replicate your issue". Well....
I created a PSD in CS5, with a bunch of process stuff, then loaded a spot color channel and painted in some pawprints using Pantone 172C:
Saved this as a PSD file, default settings (maximize compatibility on, but it doesn't make any difference in this situation).
Created a new InDesign document in CS5, added a gradient and some text, then placed the PSD. ID understands the PSD has an inbuilt background so there's no need to bother with a dedicated alpha mask:
Exported from ID using the High Quality Print option (PDF/1.4, which keeps the live transparency):
Re-exported to PDF/X-1a (based on PDF/1.3 which flattens transparency) - looks exactly the same. In all cases the spot channel is intact and the see-through regions of the PSD are maintained.

Indesign cc export pdf presets for Press Quality and High Quality Print are missing.

I no longer have the options for Press Quality or High Quality Print in exporting a PDF. Is that intentional? Can I get them back?

The first thing to try is repalcing the preferences and restarting the computer. See Replace Your Preferences
If that doesn't work, I've put a folder of the older prests here: https://www.hightail.com/download/OGhkZ285Q1JBNkUwTWRVag

Image quality and report size

Hello,
I have a problem in the export to PDF document. I use CR 10.2 with Visual Studio 2005 in a web application.
My problem is that I have a report of photographies, in wich I need an aceptable image quality. I don´t show the report in an report viewer, I create the report document and export it to PDF sending the memorystram in the http reponse.
Firstly I see that the PDF document image quality was so bad. Then I checked the report property "Retain original color depth", and the image quality was good, but the PDF size was too big, two photographies of about 2MB(each one) generates a PDF file of about 20MB size.
I need to send the pdf files to the clients via email, but the files are so big, and if the cllient inserts 10 photographies, the report size would be of about 100MB. Is there any wallkaround to this issue?. Is there this issue fixed in crystal reports XI?
Best regards

See [this|Crystal to PDF; thread. As unsatisfactory as the answer may be, it is what it is...
I believe R&D is looking at this issue, but as an enhancement for a future release of CR.
Ludek

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.

PSE 11 print quality and picture package options

I've been using PSE 5 since 2006, and figured it's time to check out what's new under the sun. I downloaded the PSE 11 trial version, whose editing function offers slightly better enhanced photos than PSE 5, but seems to fall short in two areas of importance to me: 1) When using the highest quality print settings, PSE 11 prints photos more quickly, but of lower quality than PSE 5. 2) PSE 5's "print multiple photos" feature lets me print an 8 X 10 photo with my choice of borders, whereas PSE 11's "picture package" feature seems to allow prints with choice of borders only up to 5 X 7. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I'll just keep my trusty PSE 5. Thanks for any assistance you're able to provide. Aloha, Peter

Yes I did restart PSE7.
but that did not help
I also tried to remove all the present llayout-text files except my own, then there was NOTHING to chose from!
So her is one of the layout text file that I use with PSE2 and it is working, when I select paper size A4
C 21 21
A4 (3) 10.5 10.5 cm
0 0 10.5 10.5
10.5 5.2 10.5 10.5
0 10.5 10.5 10.5
That txt file did not show in the dropdown select layout,(setting paper size A4 or Letter)
I tried the following txt file, setting papersize Letter
with the same result
I 8.5 11.0
Letter (3) 10.5x10.5 cm
0 0 4.1 4.1
4.1 2.0 4.1 4.1
0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Since there are no (error) messages I do not understand the criteria to meet for showing this layout in the select dropdown list.

Need to export Movie to Quicktime Movie w/ similar file size and quality.

Let me preface in that I am not in the video editing profession. Many times I have exported my work to the professionals. I'm sure knowing what you're doing is half of the battle. Here is my dilemma. First, I'm using Quicktime pro just to add a text track to the movie. I then save the file as what Quicktime pro calls Movie .mov. This looks good and has the quality of the original .mov and the small data size. However, no other player than quicktime will recognize the text track. I then tried exporting from Movie to quicktime movie format (still .mov, can anyone explain the difference of the two .mov types???), but I find that the image quality is poor. Yet, in the quicktime format other players (except windows media player) recognize the text track. By poor quality I mean that I think what I have is the blocking effect. I assume that this is due to the bitrate being to low. Again, I would like to keep the file size low and managable for data storage and downloading purposes. I was hoping that in the end all video players would be able to have no issues.
My current file sized are all less than 1MB and are of good quality.
Just adding a small test track the Movie .mov is still less than 1MB
The size of the image is 512x512
I should also say that I'm a PC user with a quicktime pro windows version. I'm sure that doesn't help me one bit!! However, I believe my issues are more with the fact that I'm not experienced in compressing files and knowing exactly the right settings.
Here is what I've tried thus far. Movie to quicktime movie
H264 codec
Current for fps (Which is in the original is 8fps)
Key frames automatic
frame reordering checked
I've tried Automatic data rate and setting the bit rate, even at 2000kbps (the quality is low). My original movie with the highest kbps is only 1151kbps and has no artifacts
encoding Best quality multi-pass
custom size 512x512
deinterlace checked

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:

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.

--Color differences in exports - Need to maintain color quality...

Here's the scoop...
I'm experiencing color differences and sharpness of text and graphics - basically everything in video --- from one export to another.
In this circumstance, I screen cast Powerpoint with Camtasia. I export the video in Camtasia with these settings:
Quicktime - TechSmith Ensharpen Codec.
I import into Premiere, do my edits...then export H.264 Format --- with custom settings that match Camtasia Exports - frame rate, resolution...etc...
Data Rate in Premiere - played around with diff settings...went initally with 3 min 4 mbps max --- then tested 5 min 6 max --- same results. I export them with Encoder.
Results =
- Quicktime - TechSmith Ensharpen Codec = darker, richer colors with enhanced sharpness
- H.264 from Premiere = lighter colors with more of a flat/less sharp look
I've compared in both Quicktime and VLC players
I've read that H.264 can produce color differences. I want an export that will maintain colors of Quicktime - TechSmith Ensharpen Codec at a data rate of around 1-2mbps. Have any suggestions?
Big Thanks

Jim, appreciate the insight.
Prior to posting, I forgot to mention I did adjust settings in GPU panel.
I've tested multiple computers now on various players (VLC, etc..), all with the same result --- the color difference exists on every computer. Final video's will be seen online, not a TV.
In light of this…what I've deducted is that - I still need to find an answer to my original question.
Is there an export that will maintain the quality and colors of Quicktime - TechSmith Ensharpen Codec at a data rate of around 1-2mbps?
Virtually none of the computers that people will be viewing these video's on are going to be color calibrated. It'd be comparable to the computers I've been testing on…
If I'm not seeing this clearly, then obviously let me know…I could be mistaken.
Thanks again

Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files ignored when unchecked

In the Catalog Settings under the Metadata tab, I have unchecked the option 'Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF and PSD files'.
I then selected a JPEG photograph in the Library module and chose Metadata/Save Metatdata to File. I wanted to save the metadata that I had added (keywords, IPTC, rating, etc), but not the develop settings.
I then imported the jpeg back into another catalog. The metadata I had added was there as expected, but so are the develop settings. This I did not expect or want.
Have I got something wrong here? My understanding is that turning off the 'Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF and PSD files' option means that develop settings are not written to the xmp area in non raw files such as jpegs.
Looks like a bug to me.
Tony

Hello all,
I have investigated this problem further and now have the answer. It is not that the option "Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files" is ignored, but it appears that the LR catalog is not properly updated when this option is turned off.
Here are steps to test and illustrate the problem:
1. Create a new folder and place a copy of an original jpeg image (original from camera) in the new folder. Make sure you keep the original safe and only work on copies.
2. Create a new catalog in Lightroom 2.3.
3. Import the jpeg image from the new folder.
4. Add some metadata (keywords, ratings, title, caption, IPTC data, etc).
5. Make some Develop adjustments to the image.
6. Open "Catalogue Settings" from the Edit menu and check (enable) the option "Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files". Uncheck (disable) the "Automatically write changes into XMP" option.
7. Select "Save Metadata to File".
8. Delete the jpeg image from the Library module, then re-import it.
9. Copy the original image back to the new folder, replacing the updated jpeg (once again, the jpeg image now contains no metadata from Lightroom). At this stage, Lightroom fails to recognize that the metadata in the LR catalog doesn’t match the metadata content in the jpeg file. I would have though that it should.
10. Open "Catalogue Settings" from the Edit menu and uncheck (turn off) the option "Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files".
11. Reset the Develop settings.
12. You now need to make a change to the metadata like increase or decrease the rating (otherwise LR won’t save any metadata to the jpeg file - LR is being too smart and thinks it’s already up to date, so does nothing when you do the next step).
12. Select "Save Metadata to File".
13. Delete the jpeg image from the Library module again, then re-import it again.
14. Look at the develop settings (that you specifically did not want saved within the jpeg file in step 10).
Although the Develop settings were Reset in step 11, you have ended up with the original Develop settings from step 5. It is true that LR has not saved the reset develop settings, but it also hasn’t removed the old develop settings that are still stored in the catalog. This must be considered a bug (oversight). Note that it has also saved an Import snapshot as well.
For the more technically minded (and the LR developers if you are listening), the field "xmp" in the table "Adobe_AdditionalMetadata" is not updated (old camera raw settings and snapshot settings are left behind) when the "Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files" option is unchecked (disabled) and it seems that this is the data that is written to the jpeg file when you select "Save Metadata to File". Note that the state of "Automatically write changes into XMP" has not effect on this process - I tried it on and off.
Hope that this might be of some help to others one day.
Tony

Question? Best Workflow HD/HDV and Reframing/Scaling to Export to both HD and SD when working in an HD Timeline?

Just wondering, what is the best method for working with HD Footage both HDV 1440x1080 and HD 1920x1080
Not long been using Adobe Premiere Pro CC, just switched over from Grass Valley EDIUS 6.08 and atempting my first Stage Show Multi Camera.
Source is 5 HDV PAL and 1x1920x180 60fps MP4 file from a Sanyo Handy Cam.
Final delivery is going to be DVD.
Have done a few smaller projects prior to and normally have edited in HDV 1440x1080 50i PAL and exported to whatever format I need.
Slightly different this time, I need to I need to crop/reframe some video from a couple of the Static locked off cameras. I know what to do but at moment though, I'm very much undecided which method to use for best results.
Doing some testing I notice that if I import the footage and edit in my usual HD Timeline as said above, then I go into Motion and Scale and reframe to suit, then the picture still
looks better still Full Screen on my 2nd Monitor in the HD Timeline than if I switch the Sequence Settings to SD DV PAL.
I am wondering how the scaler works when exporting. Say I go with the original HD Sequence, scale the Locked off Shots as I want them, then export to SD DV PAL then does the Adobe Media Encoder take into account that I am working in a HD Sequence (HDV 1440x1080 50i PAL) and then Scale to suit or does upscaling go in an HD Timeline then Exporting to SD make things worse, I am asking this as I still like to have the option to output an HD file for the Web and possible Bluray or Mobile Device later on.
I also still prefer working in an HD Timeline as for the other Camera Angles, then it is easier to judge focus since the image is sharper, as apposed to working in an SD Sequence.
I guess the other option I suppose is to edit in HD and then switch the Sequence Settings later on to SD before Export, but not sure that would work with the scaling? Or is that the same as working in an HD Timeline anyway and then selecting an SD Preset in the Adobe Media Encoder anyway?
I guess what I am saying is, if I say for example, Scale a HDV source to 130% or then export to SD in the AME then, is the AME upscalling the original HDV Source to 130% Loosing Quality firstly (making less pixels that to begin with), then downscaling back again to 100% SD Resolution, loosing quality once more, or does it see that the source is HD and has more pixels to use and take that into account? If you get what I am saying. Obviously if I am exporting to any HD Format then, I understand that where will be some quality lose with any amount of HD scale.
I also read that it is less CPU resource full working in the native resolution of the media when editing, especially on an older system.
The other option is to work in an 720 Preset possiblely?
At the moment I don't have a proper Preview device and am making do with the 2nd Display on my Graphics Card GTX 760.
I was looking at getting a Blackmagic Device for preview, or possible one of the Matrox.
It is a shame really, since I already have the Canopus HD Storm in the PC, which I was using with EDIUS for a lovely full screen preview to a 32" TV, since looked great, so since switthcing to Premiere, I can't use it and am having to make do with the GTX 760. Which isn't as good.
Maybe there is some setting I can alter to get a better Playback Image?
Anyway, I notice that the Full Screen Image from the GTX 760 is not as clear as it should be when editing, especially whilst playing back the image is slightly soft and more so when in the Multicam Mode it is even softer.
I am not sure if this is because my computer is not quiet fast enough? Maybe I should post this in a seperate thread in the Hardware forum, but I thought it was worth mentioned in this post aswell.
SYSTEM SPECS
Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR (Socket 775) Motherboard
8GB DDR PC-800 RAM (4x2 Sticks)
Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
60GB OCZ SSD (FM-25S2S-60GBP2 ATA Device)
2 TB 7200 Sata 300 Hard Drive - For Video (Hitachi HDS722020ALA330 ATA Device)
Windows 7 SP1 x64
So in short At the moment I am undecided which method is best to use

Your Creative camera is not the best one could wish for. Open a 1280 x 720 sequence, import some Creative footage, use motion scale to fit it in and judge the quality for yourself. My guess is you will be disappointed in the quality. Then when outputting to DVD you will reduce the resolution and quality again, making it even worse.
So, my suggestion is, don't follow that route.
Ultimately you will end up with 720 x 576 material for your DVD. You already need to upscale your Creative footage, and change the PAR and take serious quality hits, do not increase your problems by upscaling and then downscaling again.

IPhoto09 Export has both a "JPEG quality" and a "Size" option

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for