JPEG File Size Help!

Any tips (or software) on how to reduce the file size of
JPEGs without compromising the quality. I have a flash ad that has
3 screens with photos, but clients needs the .swf file to be under
20K. I can only get it down to 28K.
I've done the following:
* cropped photo down to actual size
* used "Save for Web" function in Photoshop
Any thing else I can do???
TIA!

There is a flyout option in the PS Save for Web dialogue (top right)
it allows you to Optimize to File Size
I'd be looking at that 1st
hope this helps

Similar Messages

Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

Go to Image>Resize>image size.
For purpose of web posting, go to File>save for web.

Export to jpeg: Show jpeg file size prior to export

Photoshop save to jpeg dialog box shows the jpeg file size associated with each jpeg compression level (1 - 12). Lightroom export dialog box does not show jpeg file size. Showing the expected jpeg file size is useful when needing to limit file size while maximizing jpeg quality. For example, some email applications limit attachment file size; some photo hosting sites (e.g., Zenfolio) limit file size to 12mb. If I export a cr2 file at 100 quality, it may result in a file size of 14mb. However, I cannot determine this until after I export. Then I may try 90 quality and find that the resulting file size is only 8mb. So, I try 95 quality, and get a 12.5mb file. This iterative process is a waste of time. I need to se the file size resulting from each jpeg quality setting in the export dialog box.

I have tried trashing the plist file. The files look fine through the media manager when copied to the other profile. They look like they are suppose to. The small videos also look fine when played on that computer. Unfortunately our other mac pro computer doesn't have final cut so i can't open and play proress files and my laptop, due to the extreme resolution can't be played on my laptop with final cut studio installed. Tomorrow i'm going to install the proress decoder on the one mac pro to check the files and make sure the self contained is checked but i'm almost positive on that. Other than nuking the profile i don't know what else to do. This is really weird.

JPEG file sizes compared to PS.

Hi there folks
I've noticed that the file sizes when exporting from Aperture2 to jpg are considerably different to the same files exported from Photoshop.
For example one image which was set to jpeg compression level 5 with DPI of 240 came out as 1.4mb whereas in photoshop the same image came out as 500kb.
Has anyone else noticed this and are there any settings I can check to see if there is something causing this?
Thanks for your help
Graeme

Yeah it seems to vary from about 70-100% bigger depending on the image. I was wondering if it was something to do with the metadata that's included. I always include my metadata because I am shooting for a news agency, but maybe it's the way that it stores it in the file????
I want to keep using Aperture as much as possible because I have the uberupload plugin as well and it means I can fire stuff straight through to the agency from aperture by FTP without any other apps and makes my workflow a lot quicker.
Has puzzled me.

My jpeg file size is reduced

Hi all,
On my MAC OSX, when I change in Photoshop CC jpeg images with the size of around 57MB with 72dpi to 300dpi.
After the change, the image is still 57MB which is what I want.
However, once I save it to my desktop or other folder, suddenly the file size changes to around 6MB.
Prior to today, it was working fine for over 1 year.
This issue is also happening with Photoshop Elements 11.
What is happening here and how do I fix it?
Thanks,
Sylwia

In Image Size, you change 72 dpi to 300 dpi, and now the file is smaller when you save it?
Yes, only when I save it as jpeg. If I save it as tiff, it works fine and the file stays the larger size.
Was the file resampled when you changed the dpi setting?
No, it wasn't
Were the file dimensions left the same as in the original file?
Yes
If so, I suspect that your original file was not a jpeg..
It is 100% jpeg. Only 2 choices jpeg or raw.
I can insert step by step images if this would help?
Thanks for your help so far...
Sylwia

Jpeg file size 6D vs 60D

Hi all,
Being a bit newer at all this I'm sure there is something I don't know that I don't know  which would answer this:
Been taking some identical test shots on my new 6D and my old 60D to compare. Jpeg only for now, same "quality" setting.    I noticed that the file sizes of the pictures on the 60D were larger than the 6D's. I would have thought that with a larger sensor and roughly 2mp more the 6D's would have been the larger, or at least the same. Some of the 60d's were almost 3-4 mb larger.
Lenses if it matters: 6D 24-105L kit, 60D EFS 15-85 IS.   ISO was the same in some, apetures pretty close in most.
What am I missing?

Thanks for the response.
Good point on the noise reduction, I'll check those settings to see if they are on the same setting.
I tried to frame the shots exactly the same, using only the center AF point focused on the same point for both.   Got them pretty close.
I came across a 6D review that had a table showing the raw file sizes for various cameras at various ISO's, and it showed the 60d and 6d pretty similar (still not understanding why given larger sensor and 2 more mpixel) . The 60D's got larger at the higher ISO. I am guessing increased noise may be the reason?

Export file size help...output seems way too big

I have a 12 minute movie with audio, video and stills in it.
Currently when I export it the file is 865MB... I need it to be less than 100 with decent quality. It is a tutorial video that will be downloaded from the web.
Can you please give me some direction on how to do this? On what variables to change etc. I know if I exported this out of Camtasia Studio, it would be around that 100 or less bench mark .... problem is I don't know what the settings for the Camtasia preset are.
I am using the following setup:
Quicktime Format
Summary:
Output:
1400x790, 15(fps), quality 100
48000 Hz, Stero, 16 bit
H.264
Source:
Sequece, 01-OverviewSWKit
1920x1080 (1.0), 24fps, Progressive, 00:12:03:12
48000 Hz, Stereo
Settings:
Video Codec: H264
Basica Settings:
Quality 100
Width/height (1400 x 790
Aspect: Square pixels (1.0)
Render at maximum depth - "UN"-checked
Depth: 24 bit
Advanced Settings
Key Frame every 1 frame - "UN" checked
Optimize stills - "UN" checked
Frame Reordering "UN" checked
Bitrate setting:
Limit data rate to xxxx "UN" checked
Use Maximum Render Quality - "UN" Checked
Use Previews "UN" Checked
Use Frame Blending "CHECKED"

Well, with the Apple H.264 encoder in a QuickTime container, you're a bit limited to the number of things you can tweak to decrease final file size. Using a more advanced H.264 encoder, like the free x264, will give access to many of the more "high-tech" bells and whistles that are part of the H.264 standard. One potential would be to tick the "Key frame every # frame" box and try a few values there, usually at multiples of your frame rate. Key frames are "whole" frames that take up much more space in the final file size, and decrease their frequency might help slightly decrease file size, though it will also affect quality.
Short of changing the dimensions of your destination video, decreasing the frame rate, or changing the bitrate of the video and audio streams, you will eventually reach a limit of how much you can push one parameter or another. You might try using H.264 in the Format (not codec) dropdown; this will give you a bit more control over encoding to an H.264 MP4 file. Unless you specifically need a QuickTime MOV, you might find you get better results with the H.264 MP4.
These are of course just the options in Premiere itself. Once you go outside the castle walls, you can find a whole bunch of other options, though they usually come at a steeper learning curve. The big thing to remember is that there is no free lunch when it comes to encoding; you have to give a bit here to gain there, and it's all about setting thresholds of what you're willing to accept.

Crazy File Sizes - Help!

Hello,
I have a multi-part question about multi-page PDFs. Two things are happening to me quite a lot with Acrobat and PDF creation, and I need some help figuring out what's going on.
Thing 1:
I will receive a bunch of scanned music, each page scanned separately as a separate PDF ... and each one sent in its own separate email, resulting in 30-40 emails at a time ... from another user. Each PDF page that gets sent to me tends to be somewhere around 500K. My task is to use Acrobat to combine the incoming scans into a multi-page PDF. The actual creation of the multi-part PDF is no problem. Getting Started > Combine Files into PDF is a straightforward move, and that's what I do. But the resulting multi-page PDF is HUGE. I've tried optimizing, I've tried saving it as a Small PDF ... neither of those things do much at all. I'm seeing file sizes around 5,000K by the time I'm done with an average-sized multi-page instrumental part (about 5-6 pages of music).
A big file size isn't necessarily a big deal, but I have to distribute these multi-pagers via email (that is the only electronic format that doesn't feel like alien technology to the people on the distribution list) and sending these big files in emails tends to be problematic. Slow downloads, file size limits exceeded, etc. ... this big file size thing is really annoying.
I suspect the massive file size is caused by how the initial user scanned in the pages of music, but I can't control what the initial user does; I just have to work with what arrives. Is there any way that I can fix this?
Thing 2:
I noticed that when I used the basic set-up at Fedex/Kinkos and, using a scanner and Acrobat, scanned 8.5 x 11 copies of some music as a black and white document, combining my scans into one PDF as I went and optimizing them, a file that would have been around 6,000 K coming from the other initial user and being paged together by me ended up being 568 K using this method.
When I used my camera as a impromptu scanner and used the CamScan application to take a picture of a document and save it as a PDF, I was getting pretty ridiculous file sizes, 400-500 K a page. Sam issue as with the PDFs coming from the initial user.
What is going on? Is there something in the scanning method that affects how big the file is? Is a flatbed scanner and Acrobat the only way to get small PDF sizes?
Thanks for any help you can provide...

yes it dus thanx so much.. man i dont no y i didnt see that in the first place :p i must be blind

Why is jpeg file size different in CS 5 and Photoshop CC?

If I open a jpeg file in both CS5 and Photoshop CC, and then "save" the files, the file from CC is much smaller than the file from CS5.
The size and compression ratios are the same, but the file size is different. (It is about 1/2 the size).

Bridge does not compress any files whatsoever. Bridge is not an image editor, it's nothing but a browser that hands the files to their respective applications. Bridge does not "open" or "save" files, it can't compress them in any shape or form.
What you are seeing is the difference between the opened, uncompressed file in RAM and the space the file occupies on disk once
Photoshop has saved and compressed it.
The Bridge cache has nothing to do with any of this.

Exported JPEG file sizes

A number of my images exported to JPEG have a larger file size than the original RAW file. My export is fairly basic, quality 100, color space sRGB, no resizing, no watermark. Anyone any idea why ? I thought JPEG were supposed to be compressed.

Possibly because you are not setting an output resolution so light room is making a best interpolation.
Try setting the dimensions you want or the dimension for the long edge and use a resolution of 300ppi for printing or 72 for uploading to the web.

My jpeg file sizes are much larger than they used to be.

Just recently the file sizes on my .jpeg files have become excessively larger than they used to be just a week or so ago. Where I used to go almost a week to need to archive to DVD a bunch of saved images, I've now got to save to DVD almost daily.
For example, a 300x300 pixel image which shoud be about 32 Kb reads 383 Kb in the finder. I'm not doing anything to these images, just draging and droping.
Where I used to get 7 K files on a DVD, I'm now getting less than 2 K files to each disc.
Any thoughts on what's changed and how to fix it?

What App & JPEG compression rating are you using, some apps can reduce file size by dropping colors for instance...

JPEG file size

I have been using both Lightroom and Aperture, and have noticed that Aperture's JPEG exports are much larger files than those produced by Lightroom. I have been using what are seemingly equivalent JPEG quality settings (say, Aperture's #8 out of 12, and Lightroom's #60 out of 100).
Why is this so?
Thanks.

You would have to run a test with
i identical
images because a Jpeg's file size will vary considerably dependent upon the subject matter.
If there is a significant difference between two identical files, both saved at maximum quality, it will be because one program is saving more metadata than the other.

Sips --embedProfile is reducing jpeg file size by half

I'm trying to use sips to embed the sRGB color profile to some jpegs, and when I do so, the resulting file size is always about 1/2 the original size. If I open the jpegs in Preview and embed the color profile there and save, there is a negligible file size difference. Any ideas as to what is going on when sips embeds the profile?

jphelp32 wrote:
I wouldn't expect sips to re-compress the image if I'm only adding the color profile and no other modifications.
I'm pretty confident it is re-compressing the JPEG. Here's how I tested it:
1. Add a color profile to a JPEG, just like you did.
2. Take that JPEG and load it, along with the original JPEG, into Photoshop in the same file, in different layers. Change the mode of the top layer to "Difference" and flatten the file. The picture looks like it's all black, but it's not.
3. Use a tool, like the levels adjustment, to increase the contrast. Where the two pictures differ, there will be "noise" in the picture.
However, if I duplicate a JPEG in the Finder, import the Finder duplicate and the original, and repeat steps 2 and 3, I get a black picture, no noise in it at all regardless of how much I mess with the levels.
You can change the compression level sips uses by using "-s formatOptions" and then one of low, normal, high, best , or a numerical percentage. That will also change the size of your file...
charlie

MSI GT60-0NC Paging File Size Help!

I'm having issues with my laptop (http://www.msi.com/product/nb/GT60-0NC.html#/?div=Overview) after messing with the paging file settings. I'm wondering what the default values are for this particular laptop.
I'm not sure what it was before I started messing with it, but after I changed it my benchmark for 3d renderings (architectural visualizations done through maxwell render) have dropped more than significantly.
While rendering, my physical memory usage is about 95%, my CPU usage is only 4% (which should be between 70-90%), and my Disk usage is 100%. Disk usage must be my problem, because when I check the resource monitor my the system is writing about 10,000,000 B/sec to the pagefile, while maxwell is reading about 13,000,000 B/sec from the pagefile. This read / write of the pagefile keeps my disk usage at 100% throughout the render.
If I allow windows to "automatically manage the paging file size for all drives," it allocates 12288 to drive C: (OS) and none to the other drive in the RAID. Displayed at the bottom is "Minimum allowed: 16 MB; Recommended: 5107 MB; Currently allocated: 12288 MB"
What started the problem is when I went to manually manage the pagefile myself, and moved the paging file to the other RAID drive (D:), and ever since I haven't been able to render properly. I'm trying to isolate my problem, and this is the only significant change I made to this system since it was able to render correctly, other than removing it's ability to hibernate.
Anyone have any advice? My first step was to allow windows to automatically control the pagefile again, and its back on the C drive, but the problem still persists. I also did a system restore to a date before I made these changes, and that didn't help either.
Thanks in advance for any help!

Quote from: thaBadfish on 05-January-13, 03:22:34
Thanks for the response.
Both drives in my raid are HDD, and are set to defragment weekly. Defragmenter says it was last run today, and they are both 0% fragmented.
Update:
My issue ended up being a corrupt scene file (for the rendering program), which once I rewrote the scene the problem has disappeared. Disk usage is back to very low, and CPU usage is back to 100% where it should be during a rendering. Slowdown was associated with the corrupt file causing me to hit the limit of my physical memory, which caused the major slowdown in reading/writing massive amounts of overflow to the pagefile.
That's great. Atleast you know what the problem was and know how to solve it next time!

Reducing video file size - help!

Hi all,
I've produced an 11min film for my company which has come out at 150mb when converted from F4V to WMV format (which is the format our SharePoint system prefers). However, it's too bit!
So the question is, what can I do when exporting the video from Premiere Pro to ensure it's as small as possible? Adjust the format? Bit rates? etc etc. The frame width has already been reduced to 640 x 340 pixels. I've looked at other posts, but each question is so different.
Apologies, I'm stil so new to all this and I'm sure I'm asking the most basic questions.
Thanks all
Ashley

There are only two things that effect file size, bitrate and duration. Format, resolution, frame rate, etc. won't have any effect.
And this makes sense if you think about it. Files are measured in bits, so...bits per second x number of seconds = file size. Whether 1920 x 1080 or 640 x 360, it's still bits per second x number of seconds.

JPEG File Size Help!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for