Much higher file size

I have the exact same document saved as both a Pages publication and a Word 97 - 2004 document. As a Pages publication it is 754 KB, as a Word Document, it is 115 KB. Why is this? As there anything I can do to reduce file size?

Yes but only if your graphics are oversize:
+Menu > File > Reduce File Size+
Peter
NB Pages documents are very inefficient.

Similar Messages

In iphoto, how do i save a photo after editing, in the same or higher file size, it's saves in a lower size

in iphoto, how do i save a photo after editing, in the same or higher file size, it's saves in a lower size

It's rather more complicated that this.
iPhoto is a lossless editor. You don't lose any quality on your shot in iPhoto.
The file size you see reported is the size of your iPhoto Preview: this is what gets used if you access the data via a media browser. It's a "good-enough-for-most-uses" version of the shot. Email it, upload to websites, use it in Presentation, Word processing file etc
If you want to set the quality yourself then Export the photo using the File -> Export command.
You can choose to export to Jpeg, Tiff or png. Tiff is lossless but the file sizes are up to 10 times larger. Jpeg allows you to choose different qualities: High, Medium or low. The difference is the amount of compression involved. High quality means very little compression. It's not unusual for photos exported at this setting to have a larger file size than the original.
Which setting you choose depends on the use you intend. Further editing, printing then high is important. Sending to Facebook? Well low will do just fine there as they're going to trash the file anyway.
But the key point: the file size only becomes an issue when you export.
Regards
TD

When round tripping with photoshop cc, i get a saved psd file with my original raw,the problem is these are high file sizes and taking a lot of space,can i stop this?

when round tripping with photoshop cc, i get a saved psd file with my original raw,the problem is these are high file sizes and taking a lot of space,can i stop this?

That's not the workflow that I use. I have my Lightroom preferences set to create TIF images when going to Photoshop. I keep the original raw file and the TIF image (usually reduced to an 8-bit image) and only export JPEG's when they are needed to send to a lab or to send to someone over the Internet. JPEG files are highly compressed. I only create them when they are needed, and they are discarded as soon as they have been used for their intended purpose. I keep the raw file and the Photoshop-created TIF in my library. This requires extra disk space. But I always have the highest quality files available.

PE 10 YouTube Upload file sizes

PE10 gives estimates for file sizes under the various Share options. I notice for YouTube presets that in selecting between PAL Widescreen, 1440 x 1080 and 1920 x 1080 to my considerable surprize the last one is the smallest estimated files size by a big margin (50%!). Is this actually right, so that to limit upload transfers the highest setting actually gives the smallest upload? I usually use the 1920 setting but recently I have been uploading video which was shot at 1440 and I have tried uploading this with both the other settings and it takes for ever, so perhaps it is the case that the 1920 setting actually is a much smaller files size - seems unlikely however.
Andrew

Andrew
Thanks for the sample file for me to check out in my Premiere Elements 10 on Windows 7 64 bit.
I am not seeing the trend that you are seeing with regard to the YouTube estimate for file size for the uploads from within Premiere Elements 10 Share/Online/YouTube
For the sample that you sent
1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9 @ 25 interlaced frame per second (H.264.m2ts)
File Size 43 MB, Duration 36.00 seconds
YouTube Preset and its File Size Estimate
PAL - Flash Video For YouTube (Widescreen).....................13.46 MB
PAL - High Definition Video For YouTube 1440 x 1080.........26.64 MB
PAL - High Definition Video For YouTube 1920 x 1080.........35.71 MB
Flash Video For YouTube (Widescreen)..............................13.46 MB
High Definition Video For YouTube (1440 x 1080)................26.64 MB
High Definition Video For YouTube (1920 x 1080)................35.71 MB
Please let me know how close you came to the above file sizes when you tested that same sample file in your computer environment.
Let us try this.
Take the file that you sent as a sample here, and import that into a Premiere Elements 10 project (PAL AVCHD HD1080i25)
Go to Share/Computer/AVCHD and Presets.
Set the Preset first to
M2T - H264 1440 x 1080i25
What do you see as the estimated file size? I am seeing 181.32 MB.
Set the Preset next to
M2t - H264 1920 x 1080i25
What do you see as the estimated file size? I am seeing 226.22 MB.
The duration of the file (36.00 seconds) stayed the same throughout.
Depending on your answers, we can decide whether an uninstall reinstall of QuickTime and/or Premiere Elements 10 would be in order.
Thanks.
ATR

10.4.3 File Size Shown Incorrectly in Finder Window

Tiger 10.4.3 --- Sometimes file sizes don't display correctly in Finder windows. For example, I was just downloading a bunch of large files from an FTP site. They were all 44.1Mb in size. After they finished DL'ing, some of the file sizes showed a much smaller file size. But cmd-I on those files and the correct size is displayed.
Some of these files show up with the correct size, but only after waiting a loooong time...
Can anyone tell me why don't file sizes show up correctly? Or immediately? Any help will be appreciated!

Is this causing any problems, or is it just a quirky behavior? For example, if you change to list view and sort by date, does it still get the dates wrong?
I'm thinking this is probably a really marginal bug, where Composer isn't telling the Finder to refresh the date as most applications do, but then, Mozilla does a lot of unMaclike things. Eventually the Finder figures out that the files have been updated though. There are probably a host of ways you can force it to update, as you've already discovered. You can also force it to update with a simple AppleScript:
tell application "Finder"
update every item of window 1
end tell
This tells the Finder to update everything in the frontmost window to match what's on the disk.

.pdf file size limits

Is there a limit to .pdf file size or page count?

Just to confirm what Bill said —
I have several 'boxes' that I use each day.
They range from the typical, adequate, lower price point to a high end 'power-box'.
I have occasion to combine a large PDF document collection into a single PDF having a foot print of just under 800Mb (page count out around 2,000).
When using the 'typical, adequate, lower price point' box this large PDF can only be consumed at a crawl.
Bottom line is that the typical box has less RAM, resources, and integrated graphics rather than a adequately robust independent graphics card.
These boxes just do not provide the 'logistical' support to applications (Adobe Reader, Acrobat, whatever) that render PDFs with the very high file size foot print.
Particularly so if the PDF contains a good dose of graphics.
For the most part I've found that end-users seriously avoid such PDFs.
Be well...
Message was edited by: CtDave

File sizes increase in StarOffice 8

I've got a letter I send out about once a month, just changing dates in the contents for each edition. It has a linked .jpg file as background.
In StarOffice 7 the .sxw file size is 8 Kb.
In StarOffice 8 the size has leapt to 44 Kb, whether I save it in .sxw or .odt format.
Why?

I find that file sizes increase both with text documents and with spreadsheets, sometimes by a great deal. One of the reasons I switched from 5.2 to 7 was the much smaller file sizes, since I keep my weekly back-ups on floppies (and am a stingy sort of fellow generally). But I had to run 7 and 5.2 together, since 7 does not handle Sanskrit/Hindi founts (the SO "help" team just asked a whole lot of questions and then disappeared). So now I have (on Windows) 5.2, 7 and 8. I have still not checked if 8 handles these founts. If it does, I can remove 5.2. For the rest, 8 does not seem to offer any advantage over 7 -- not counting the data base, which I have still to look into. File size, in my view, goes against it.

What's the best settings to Export movie for smaller file sizes?

Hi, I've been working on some helmet cam footage which was taken with Xvidmpeg4.avi and was advised to convert it to dvavi for editing in PrE, this created a huge file to work with, the original footage was 206mb and the finished edited dvavi file is now 1.56gb, what settings can I use to export the movie with a much smaller file size, but hopefully try to retain some quality, to upload to places like Vimeo? I thought I would try to export it in the same as the original footage Xvidmpeg4.avi thinking this might compress it again to something like the 206mb of the original and the original was good quality footage, but PrE just hangs up with a box stating 'Xvid Status (Not Responding)' and when I try to cancel that the whole thing crashes and closes? So when I go to File > Export > Movie, what would be the best settings in:
General > File Type ?
Video > Compressor
lots of options under compressor if I select the file type as Microsoft AVI, so I'm guessing something under that would compress it to a smaller file size but what, I could spend all night trying different settings so hoping for some advice?
Or, if I'm completely in the wrong place for the settings and should be doing something else please tell me?
Thanks, Gav

Thanks for the replies, but to me it's still confusing - simply because there are so many settings, if I go to Share/Personal Computer I'm then presented with a whole load of settings
NTSC Flash Video
MPEG
DVAVI
Windows Media
QuickTime
and under each of those is a lot more advanced settings?
I'm guessing I wouldn't use flash or quicktime, so which of the others would I use and what are the advanced settings to use as I can't find anything that is .wmv or .mov
What I've done with other videos that I've exported from PrE as dvavi is then to put it through Windows Movie Maker, Publish Movie, This Computer, then put the settings to Windows Media DVD Quality (PAL) (3.0 Mps) - this seemed to be the only setting that reduced the file size considerably but still had good quality, but it's still about twice the original file size?
This all seems long winded to me, open original file, convert original file, output another file, then output the file again in something else which then results in loss of quality and a larger file than the original? I'm ending up with lots of files, was hoping just to edit in Premiere then export/publish that edited clip and that would be it, then upload to the net.
Is it not possible to just edit my original footage and save it, just like you would with something like a word document, should I be using something else and not Premiere?
Thanks.

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Reduce the File Size of an Enhanced Podcast

Someone sent me a podcast episode exported from GarageBand. It's been exported as a .m4a and has several images inside of it. The problem is it's 17 minutes long and 50MB in size. The audio is encoded at 320 kbps. I try to use iTunes to change the file size (by selected Spoken or 128 in the Settings and then Advanced > Create AAC version). I get a much smaller file size but the photos disappear. How can I reduce the files size without losing the photos in this enhanced AAC file?
Thanks for the help!

Not with Reader. You need Acrobat Standard or Professional to reduce the size of a PDF.

Reduce File Sizes

Our HP copier scans to PDF. The resulting file sizes are quite large, since we scan in color. How can I use Acrobat 9 Pro to reduce a 26MB color document to a much smaller file size black and white document without reprinting it to a PDF?

If your starting point is Color, converting to Grayscale might produce more acceptable results than converting to Black and White.
To Convert colors, try: Advanced>Preflight>PDF Fixups>Convert to Grayscale
To reduce the size of a scanned document (either the original color, or bw/grayscale) try Document>Optimize Scanned PDF

Simple crop and the file size triples

Good day,
I'm trying to figure out why a video encoded using AME comes out with a much bigger file size than the original. Even if all I'm doing is using it to trim the source file. No change in settings, bit rate, dimensions etc.
In the current example I'm taking a webex recordings and trimming out some dead space in the beginning. I've lowered every setting (video and audio) I can to it's lowest potential and the resulting file looks worse than the original and is triple the file size. Both the source and the result are .mp4.
Please assist. The is making the files go from email-able to not. Making a video shorter shouldn't make it larger....
Thank you for your help.

When encoding to virtually ANY format, you will be able to set the BITRATE. This determines how big or small an output file is. Apparently, the file you are creating is running about 3x the bitrate of the source file. You can adjust the bitrate under the VIDEO tab in AME.
Not knowing the specs of the source, I can't suggest how to export. Perhaps if you post a screen shot of your export panel in AME, that will help. Note that if you choose "HD 1080p" H.264 preset that will be much larger than say "YouTube 1080p", there are many options.
Thank you
Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor Computers

CS4 and Raw- small file size

I have RAW files that are anywhere from 7-15MB. They are opening as 10x15 inches. My JPEGS open in much larger files sizes - about 50+ inches. I have downloaded the latest Adobe RAW plug-in updates for CS4. Using a Canon 40D. Searched and seached online for an explanation. Thank you

I think it just has to do with the resolution settings in the files.
They are the same size but the resolution is set different.
For example, the camera raw files are probably around 240 and the jpegs are around 72.
If you open a jpeg and camera raw file and set the resolution of the jpeg to match the camera raw file, then they should
be the same document size.
Find the resolution of the camera raw file under Image>Image Size.
Open one of the jpegs and in Image>Image Size uncheck Resample Image and type in the same resolution as the raw file
and see if the document size is the same.

Pixel Dimensions and File Size

Can anybody please explain the relation between pixel dimensions and file size?
Being naive, (or straight-forward if you prefer) I had assumed that pixel dimensions wide times pix dimension high = file size. Wrong!
For instance a .JPG file 374 X 500 has a file size of 41,275 bytes. But 374 times 500 = 18,700 so the two are different issues.

Thanks Rich. It kind of sounds like you know something about this.
I see 1 pixel, and 24 bit color would make 24 bits at 8 bits to a byte, so there's the 3 bytes.
I selected a certain photo and used the APPLE i command to see if could find if it had 8 bit color or, whatever. That infomation was not on the info function, but it did say something about RGB color profile.
Is 8 bit color a near certain bet in most applications, or was that just for the sake of illustration?
I Googled 8 bit color and go to a Wikipedia Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth
which explained a lot, but its more technical depth than what I'm prepared to deal with. The net net, as far as I can tell is that image size (before compression) is dimension times color depth in its native mode, but I suppose what the native mode is and what the displayed mode is could be separate issues?
I was under the impression that the compression in JPG formt files comes out, or is decompressed, when the photo is printed or displayed? No?

Image size vs file size

Hello,
I would very much appreciate an answer to the follwing: When I save a file to jpeg the image size in photoshop remains the same as it was as a tiff file BUT according to the information that comes up in windows properties the file is much smaller (300k vs 2.9mg). Can you advise me which is the correct file size? If the correct size is the one showing in windows (300K) does mean that the file compressed in JPG and lost a lot of information? and if this is the case how can I prevent that from happening and still save the file as a JPG? [ I would like the image to remain the size photoshop shows it to be] . Thank you very much.

The file size of the JPG on disk is 300kb this is because it is heavily compressed.
The file size shown in Photoshop is uncompressed and appears at the larger size.
Yes, compressing loses information but it may not lose much quality the first time it is compressed.
To minimise data loss use a compressed TIFF format.
Or stop worrying about file size – storage space is cheap!
The only time JPEGs should be used is for display on the web.
In fact for general use in Adobe applications, the PSD format is fine. (As long as it lasts! )

Much higher file size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for