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.

Similar Messages

  • Is there a pratical size limit for an Air application window?

    I'm brand new to creating Air applications. I started to design a utility in Flash CS4 for my own use. I had originally intended for it to be a simple SWF, but decided to make an Air app as an experiment, and to perhaps share it with others in the future.
    Basically, the application allows the use to drag-resize a box to measure the pixel dimensions of an area onscreen (photo, Windows window, etc.) I wanted to allow it to be resized to any dimensions up to the size of the screen. The chrome is custom and mostly transparent with some alpha for the box to overlay on whatever you're measuring. However, I've run into a few problems, the primary one being that I cannot set the app to run maximized to the screen size and allow any graphics to extend beyond the dimensions of the stage in the source FLA (it all gets clipped at the edges of the stage). I decided to forget about this and just set a maximum size of the stage. So, what was originally a box that you could stretch out to any dimensions, can now only be resized to the upper limit I set (preferrably 1600px X 900px).
    Annoyingly, I've found that any stage size in the source FLA beyond 1500px X 850px causes the Air app to respond very slowly. At sizes below that, the app responds very quickly, as if it were a windowed SWF. My question is, is there a practical upper limit to the size of an Air app window? I mean, if I have an Air app with a window size of 1500px X 850px that can be resized without any perceived lag, why does the window resizing slow down so dramatically by just increasing those dimensions by 1px?

    These factors that determine the minimum and maximum width and height of a window:
    The minimum and maximum operating system limits, which are the values of the systemMinSize and systemMaxSize properties of the        NativeWindow object
    The maximum width and height of a window in Adobe AIR, which are each 2880 pixels
    The minimum width and height required by any displayed system chrome
    The minSize and maxSize properties of the NativeWindow object
    I cannot address the performance problems you are experiencing. I hope someone else can comment.

  • Is there a movie size limit for iWeb published in MobileMe?

    I'm having trouble creating a movie page in iWeb. There's an error when I try to publish it to MobileMe.
    Is there a movie size limit? The video is 20 MB.

    I don't know what the limit is but iWeb often indicates 10MB or less is preferred. There are alternatives to adding larger movies to a web page that don't require the movie to load until the play button is selected. See this demo page for one method: Opening Item in a New, Precisely Sized Window. A demo page with 7 movie files using this method can see here: PhotoPresenter Animated Slideshow Themes.
    This second page has the other method. It is a little more involved but works nicely. Again, the move doesn't have to load until the play button is selected. It's the movie here: QT Movies via Export for Web in QT Player.
    OT

  • Is there a project size limit for Captivate 3?

    Hello,
    I'm using Captivate 3 and building a project that is currently approximately 19,200 KB.  I don't know if that's too large but as I continue to build, it seems to be acting funny like it's too big.  For instance, it closed on me without warning which it never did before.  Also it's taking longer & longer to prepare for previewing. My project is only about 1/3 finished so I'm concerned I'm going to get into more & more problems given its growing size. 
    I thought to break it into smaller projects and link them using the MenuBuilder but I haven't figured out a way to get back to this menu page from the project.  In Advance Settings of a particular menu item, I can select "Open link in the same window."  This happens but at the end of watching that linked project, I just get a blank screen.  If I "X" out of that project at the end of it using the "X" on the menu, I get a white screen. If I use the MS Window's "X", then everything closes included the menu preview window.  Is it possible to somehow use a button to get back to the menu page and not have a 2nd window open for the menu item that was selected? Or maybe I can keep building in a single project b/c there is no size limit?
    Thank you,
    Jeanne

    Welcome to our community, Jeanne
    Indeed Captivate 3 projects *DO* actually have a "size limit". But I'm unaware of any specific byte size that is to be concerned about. Typically we recommend folks keep projects at somewhere between 50-65 slides as a "rule of thumb" guideline for an upper limit.
    There are a great many factors that come into play with this. Things such as:
    Authoring PC Specifications (available memory, hard drive, processor speed, etc.)
    How many objects are on each slide
    Generally you are able to split things up and perform what is called a "Daisy Chain" approach. This is where one project ends and another is launched as the ending action. You may also specify that the end action for projects be to open the SWF that contains the menu.
    Hopefully this helps... Rick
    Helpful and Handy Links
    Begin learning Captivate 5 moments from now! $29.95
    Captivate Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
    Adobe Certified Captivate Training
    SorcererStone Blog
    Captivate eBooks

  • Please add support for JPEG Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF)

    It seems that now Adobe® Illustrator® can export only to the JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF). We should have an option to produce the JPEG Exchangeable image file format (EXIF) as well (just like Photoshop does!). Why this is so important to me? I generally work under Illustrator and I often post my work on Behence. I work with 'sRGB IEC61966-2.1' color profile. When publishing I use *.jpg with embedded ICC Color Profile. But it looks like Behence doesn’t fully support the JPEG JFIF – for example it cannot read its icc data correctly. The effect is that my work looses its quality! The only option to produce the JPEG EXIF I have now is to: Export *.ai file to JPEG (under Adobe Illustrator) > go to Photoshop > Create new project > Paste the *.jpg > and Sava As JPEG with icc embedded. This guarantees my files are being processed correctly.
    (JPEG) Formally, the EXIF and JFIF standards are incompatible. This is because both specify that their particular application segment (APP0 for JFIF, APP1 for Exif) must be the first in the image file. In practice, many programs and digital cameras produce files with both application segments included. This will not affect the image decoding for most decoders, but poorly designed JFIF or Exif parsers may not recognize the file properly. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_File_Interchange_Format#Exif_comparison )
    I’ve analyzed my files using JPEGsnoop 1.6.1 (an app by Calvin Hass, http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/) and here is the result:
    A) an *.jpg file produced with Adobe Illustrator > File > Export > JPEG > ICC profile embedded:
    *** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000000
    *** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000002
    length     = 16
    identifier = [JFIF]
    version    = [1.2]
    density    = 72 x 72 DPI (dots per inch)
    thumbnail  = 0 x 0
    B) an *.jpg file produced with Adobe Illustrator > File > Save For Web > JPEG > ICC profile embedded:
    *** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000000
    *** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000002
    length     = 16
    identifier = [JFIF]
    version    = [1.2]
    density    = 100 x 100 (aspect ratio)
    thumbnail  = 0 x 0
    C) an *.jpg file produced with Adobe Photoshop > File > Save As > JPEG > ICC Profile embedded
    *** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000000
    *** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000002
    length          = 1320
    Identifier      = [Exif]
    Identifier TIFF = 0x[4D4D002A 00000008]
    Endian          = Motorola (big)
    TAG Mark x002A  = 0x002A
    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
    Dir Length = 0x0007
    [Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
    [XResolution ] = 720000/10000
    [YResolution ] = 720000/10000
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [Software ] = "Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)"
    [DateTime ] = "2014:08:02 17:21:15"
    [ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00A8
    Offset to Next IFD = 0x000000D4
    EXIF IFD1 @ Absolute 0x000000E0
    Dir Length = 0x0006
    [Compression ] = JPEG
    [XResolution ] = 72/1
    [YResolution ] = 72/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [JpegIFOffset ] = @ +0x0132 = @ 0x013E
    [JpegIFByteCount ] = 1006
    Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000
    EXIF SubIFD @ Absolute 0x000000B4
    Dir Length = 0x0003
    [ColorSpace ] = sRGB
    [ExifImageWidth ] = 200
    [ExifImageHeight ] = 200
    Regards,
    Pawel Kuc

    This is a user-to-user forum and is not monitored by Apple for feedback purposes. You can give feedback to Apple here: Apple - Mac OS X - Feedback

  • Is there a PDF size limit?

    Is there a recommended maximum size (in pages or MB) for a single PDF file?
    We have very large (10,000+) page PDFs that are being created, and we keep running into problems with file corruption. I'm not sure its related to the size of the PDF, the fact that it is created using various other scanned docs, or because the original was in Acrobat 8 and we're now adding to it using Acrobat X.
    Any suggestions?
    thanks

    There's no explicit page number limit but there is a limit on indirect objects of 8,388,607 in a 32-bit PDF rendering application - Acrobat and Adobe Reader are both 32-bit code - and because each page consumes at least one indirect object, every PDF file created by or opened by Acrobat must have less pages than that. If you were to create a native x64 PDF application you could add more pages, but the resulting files wouldn't open at all in 32-bit apps.
    Architecturally there is only one limit in the PDF standard: the overall file size must be below ~10GB as the cross-reference tables which define the PDF structure use 10 bits.

  • Is There A Maximum Size Limit for The MicroSD Card?

    Hey all,
    I'm a BB newbie.  I installed an 8GB MicroSD card.  Finally figured out that you must format the card from the device in order to get it to work.
    However, in doing so, my 8GB card is only recognized as 4GB.  Is there a maximum size card that the 8300 series(I have an 8320 through T-Mobile)  will recognize or is there something strange going on with my MicroSD card???
    The manual isn't clear on that.
    Thank you

    Supported SD card size is OS dependant as follows:
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.2.0 - Up to 2 GB
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.2.1 - Up to 4 GB
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.2.2 - Up to 4 GB
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.3.0 - Up to 8 GB
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.5.0 - Up to 8 GB
    BlackBerry Device Software 4.6.0 - Up to 16 GB
    Note that 16 Gigs was just added to the list a few days ago! This is directly from the Tech Support Site here:
    http://www.blackberry.com/btsc/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=KB05461
    Jerry

  • What is the size limit for a servlet .java file?

    I have been working on a jsp page with over 500 controls so I have getParameter() for those at least in my servlet. It is too big I think because the java file size is 40K but the class file is 25KB. Any sugguestion? Thanks,J

    Yes, there is a maximum length for the URL but if you use POST with a form the parameters do not appear in the URL... They would if you'd use GET however.
    Still, I guess it is just too much. And if that's a form a user would be supposed to fill out (usually they are supposed to do just that) they'd probably get tired and quit after the first 100 fields... 500 fields on one page is definately too much. I'd say try splitting it up to have about 10 fields on a page but then you'de have 50 pages to go through, which is less that good...
    May I ask what the 500 fields are for? What data is the form supposed to process? There might be a more practicable way to solve this.

  • Size limit of 16TiB to sparsebundle files?

    I manage several servers with higher disk volumes. Some use OsX.
    At one particular customer, the OsX 10.7.5 fileserver has 21TB available and the OsX 10.8.4 backupserver has 25TB. Using TimeMachine we stumbled across an apparent size limit of 16TiB (17.59TB) for sparsebundle files. Whenever we try to expand the sparsebundle beyond that size, we receive error messages about exceeding `the´ size limit.
    Which one? I found no information regarding such limitations. AFAIK, a sparsebundle is a virtual "Mac OS Extended" filesystem [partition in a virtual disk], which should be able to grow up to 8EiB since OsX 10.4 and the sparsebundle itself resides on a filesystem of that type also. So it's size limit should be 8EiB too. I see no reason, why a sparsebundle should have limits far less.
    How can I create (resize) sparsebundles to, say, 20TB?

    If there's a fixed limit to the size of an OS X disk image, it's not publicly documented anywhere that I know of. That doesn't mean there is no limit. Your customer may be the first person in history to have tried to create one that large. He should be mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records.

  • 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!

  • Size of XI messages processing image files

    hi,
    I hav a scenario in which XI is picking up images form a database and is sending them to another database.
    The JDBC sender adapter in use has a query like select image, file name, file size from table where file name starts with 'a', thus at times the adapter ends up picking multiple images in one go.
    When we check the size of the a single XI message payload carrying images as a result of the above adapter, it has been observed to be of double the size of the image being carried. For instance, if the image picked is of size 1MB the size of the XI message payload is shown as 2MB; in the <SAPMessageSizePayload> tag when the message is opened in SXI_MONITOR.
    I want to know the reason behind the XI message payload size being double that of the size of the image it carries.
    regards,
    Diptee
    Edited by: diptee s on Dec 18, 2010 11:10 AM
    Edited by: diptee s on Dec 18, 2010 11:11 AM

    Hi Diptee,
    No, as far as I know. Since your scneario is DB1--> PI --> DB2, there is no need to covert the hexadecimal string to binary as it will be taken care by the receiver JDBC adapter while posting to DB2.
    The JDBC adapter is designed to have the following XML structure as response. Assume that Col1 or Col2 is BLOB and then if JDBC adapter accomodates the binary stream, XML becomes invalid/incomplete.
    <resultset>
    <row>
    <column-name1>column-value</ column-name1>
    <column-name2>column-value</column-name2>
    </row>
    </resultset>
    Regards,
    Praveen Gujjeti
    Edited by: Praveen Gujjeti on Dec 20, 2010 10:39 AM

  • Is there a maximum size limit for a single file?

    I haven't been able to find a statement of the maximum size of a file. We're looking at storing several 5-10gb files in one file library.
    Is it possible?
    How badly would that impact performance?

    maximum size of a file. All files are stored as Binary Large Objects (BLOBs), A BLOB max size is (4 gigabytes -1) * (the value of the CHUNK parameter of LOB storage). Oracle Content Services configures its LOBs to have a 32K chunk size
    Note that there is a overhead by storing large files, you should compress your files if possible before storing them.
    http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B25553_01/collab.1012/b25492/contentservices.htm#CACHJJGI
    How badly would that impact performance?Compared to what? Oracle ASM gives you the ability to stripe your content over hundreds of physcal disks to improve the performence. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/asm/index.html

  • Is there a page size limit when exporting a pdf from InDesign?

    My indd file is 201x40 inches with a 1.5 inch slug. When I export to pdf I get this message, "The document page size exceeds the page size range supported in PDF files. Exported pages will be resized to fit within PDF limits."

    Although the PDF spec mentions that it's feasible to create a PDF as large as 15,000,000 inches in either direction, 200 x 200 inches is Distiller’s limit for PostScript. It’s based on the Windows printer driver limitation.
    If I read the quote below correctly, the maximum page size is 15 million inches (381 km).
    "This is from the PDF Reference 1.6:
    177. In PDF versions earlier than PDF 1.6, the size of the default user space unit is fixed at 172 inch. In Acrobat viewers earlier than version 4.0, the minimum allowed page size is 72 by 72 units in default user space (1 by 1 inch); the maximum is 3240 by 3240 units (45 by 45 inches). In Acrobat versions 5.0 and later, the minimum allowed page size is 3 by 3 units (approximately 0.04 by 0.04 inch); the maximum is 14,400 by 14,400 units (200 by 200 inches).
    Beginning with PDF 1.6, the size of the default user space unit may be set with the UserUnit entry of the page dictionary. Acrobat 7.0 supports a maximum UserUnit value of 75,000, which gives a maximum page dimension of 15,000,000 inches (14,400 * 75,000 * 172). The minimum UserUnit value is 1.0 (the default)."

  • Is there a maximum size limit to convert from pdf to excel?

    I have a pdf file that is 28,000 KB or 2661 pdf pages and of course it is timing out when I try to convert.  Any advice on how to convert this file to Excel?
    Thanks,
    Michelle

    Hi michelle gonzles,
    Was it working fine in Mozilla Firefox?
    Were you able to checked with a different browser as suggested above?
    Would you send your PDF document to [email protected] as an email attachment? 
    I will check it from my end.Please add the link to this forum post for reference.
    Regards,
    Florence

  • Is there are a size limit for the returned value from substr?

    It is seems to be limited to 4000.
    But working with clob it is not enough.
    Does someone have a quick workarround?
    Thanks!

    It is seems to be limited to 4000.use plsql:
    michaels>  DECLARE
       c   CLOB := RPAD ('x', 32767, 'x') || RPAD ('x', 32767, 'x');
    BEGIN
       DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line ('Length clob: ' || LENGTH (c));
       DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line ('Length substring clob: ' || LENGTH (SUBSTR (c, 1, 50000)));
    END;
    Length clob: 65534
    Length substring clob: 50000

Maybe you are looking for