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...

Similar Messages

Using the Premiere pro CC 2014 exported media file size is much larger than estimate, also is so much bigger than Premiere CS 6?

I used the preset H,264 Youtube 1080HD to export a video. The estimate size is 7308 MB {after I reduce the nitrate). The final size is 11.18 GB.
Why is so much different? Befor I Use the Premiere CS6 to export a simial size use the same format Is around 6GB.

First of all, the estimated file size just an estimate based chiefly on the combination of the bitrate and duration. The actual size can vary significantly, depending in large part on the amount of change from frame to frame throughout the video. For example, if you encode two clips of identical duration to exactly the same settings, the only difference being the nature of the content--say on is a talking head interview shot with the camera locked down on a tripod while the other is skateboarding footage that was shot handheld--the size of two resulting outputs files will be widely divergent.
As to the comparison between CS6 and CC2014, note that the settings for some presets have been changed. For instance, the h.264 YouTube 1080 presets went from 8Mbps to 16.

Why is menu size so much larger than the files?

I am somewhat perplexed - I'm making a single-layer dvd and have a simple single screen theme (no animation) - it has one drop zone. The movie has 28 chapters so there are five of them, but so far I've added only one montage of photos to each menu page - it's a "mobile" quality in media browser and ave only 10 - 20 MB, then one song. On average these movie clips are 1:00 to 2:00 min long and the music is cut to that length. So, all told, it's probably less than 110 MB in files - but when I look at the project properties, the menus are 3301 MB!!!
The movie itself is only 1.1 GB so what is going on?
It's preventing me from doing the project and I've got no idea why it's making the menu size so much larger than the file sizes?
Can you please help me figure out what to do?
Alexa

The 2 min clips were natively 2 min - I had each one separate and actually converted to media browser in "mobile" size (b/c the drop zone was 4 x 6 in size in the theme). They were tiny - in most cases I was shortening the audio (e.g. the song was 4 minutes and I was setting the loop to only 1:30 b/c that's how long the video clip was on the menu).
BUT, to resolve the question (I always like to post the answer) - I ended up duplicating the project to try to reimport the video. It was a fresh iDVD project and I happened to click on the project tree of screens - and, lo and behold, the ENTIRE menu was duplicated for some reason (and the movie, actually). I went back to the original and it was the same! I have no idea how that would happen do you? It only had one main menu screen - and then an entire duplicate menu - which I wouldn't even know how to access if I didn't see it in the project menu tree?
The only think of is that at one point I added a title menu link to the scene selection - it gave me a warning that my menu was more than 12 minutes, did I want to fix or ignore and fix later - which confused me b/c it was under 12 min, then but I clicked ignore. Does that create an alternate title menu and send people back to something else?
Anyway, I deleted the entire extra scene selection menus (5 of them) and it was back to under 4 GB.
So, I was able to burn, but still wondering about creating the "title menu" link on scene selections? It drives me crazy that it doesn't automatically do that so I like to add "main menu" links.
Thanks for your help!
Alexa

When I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

when I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

Are the image all the same size the % files open into a document seems to vary with the number of pixels the image being opened has. Check the Image size.

PDF Files from InDesign much larger than Quark- Distiller, why?

We've recently switched our publishing workflow for one of our pubs from Quark to InDesign, and are having issues with PDFs being really large. Previously, the pub would be PS'd out of QXP6.52 and then ran through our Distiller service at Press Ready quality settings. The resulting PDF files were 4-6mb (This is only a 2-page pub).
Now, moving to InDesign, we PDF directly from InDesign (or I've also tried PSing and then Distilling), and using Press Ready Quality settings still -- the resultant PDF files are 15-16mb. Can anyone theorize as to what would create such a large difference between the two?
This is using a few issues of the pub - not just one instance, as well.
Thanks

[email protected] wrote:
7. Yes, the file and links are using transparency.
This is probably the answer.
Recreate the page in InDesign with no transparency (as a test). This means all links are tiff or eps. No use of opacity or blend modes. No drop shadows.
This is how it would have been in Quark 6, which did not support transparency (the newer kind anyway)
Note: if you had overlying drop shadows in Quark 6 they would have had to have been bitmap tiffs.
I also should mention: transparency is a good thing. There may be a way to get the file size down without removing transparency. Possibly you could use Acrobat to do this.
Also note I posted a couple of updates on my previous post, they may or may not be relevant.

Why are ACR PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD?

Why are ACR > PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD? I posted this many years ago and never found an answer. Now that my drives fill up quicker, I thought I might chase this question a little bit further.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.
Why the difference? Is ACR and PSD actually using different compression strategies?
thanks.
Mac 10.8.5 / CC / ACR 8.4.1 - but this has been a consistent behavior over many years and versions, CS6 / CC.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.

Hi Jeff
If it is RLE it's not as efficient as LZW:
Saved ACR>PSD = 40.1MB (sample image this AM)
opened in PS and resaved as PSD = 30.8MB
resaved as TIF without LZW = 40.1MB (this adds to your thought that the ACR>PSD doesn't us any compression)
resaved as TIF/LZW = 9.6MB
Jeff Schewe wrote:
I really think your priorities are a bit off. 10-20% is meaningless...you just need to get bigger.... and quit fussing over a few GB's here or there...
??? I hope that the Adobe engineers are fussing over 10-20% efficiencies.
I'm within arms reach to a rack of 40TB of drives (doesn't include off-site drives), and all 2TB drives are being recycled to 4TB drives, as a result the rack is always growing. Actually the ACR>PSD files don't really make a difference in our long term storage, only for the nightly backups. But anyway, how you save, what you save etc. should all be part of the discussion.
.... so in my case, throw in an excess MB here and there and all of a sudden you are talking TB's. Plus advantages in backup times, drive life, and energy use.
Somebody added compression into the PS>PSD format, but it wasn't included in the ACR>PSD format, was it a decision or an oversight? If it's just a matter of making ACR compatible with PS when saving the same PSD format..... then why not?
regards,
j

Trying to download update to CoPilot Live and CoPilot GPS with maps. files sizes are large and taking hours to download on wireless connection. How can I download App updates and new maps while connected to PC and Itunes through hard wire internet link?

Trying to download update to CoPilot Live and CoPilot GPS with maps. Files sizes are large and taking hours to download on wireless connection. How can I download updates and new maps while connected to PC and Itunes through hard wire internet link?

I'm on my iPad, so I don't know if this is the page with an actual download. I don't see a button, but assume that is because I am on an iPad. It is in the DL section of Apple downloads.
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1708

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.

"File size is too large"

When I imported the only 4 files in a particular folder (scans of photos) into the Organiser, the message "File size is too large" came up for two of them instead of preview images, although do appear to have been added to the Catalog as their MB size, pixel dimensions and creation date show in the Properies General tab.
I take it this must relate to pixel count and not the file size per se as the two tifs (13.2 and 13.3 MB but 1792 x 2508 and 2518 x 1798 pixels) are fine, while the two JPGs (12.9 and 30.8 MB and 9616 x 6480 and 7048 x 10376) are the ones without preview images?
I wasn't aware of this as a problem, so can anybody tell me please, have I just set too low a limit somewhere or is there a real restriction?
And is this new to PSE6 or something that's been around for a while?
Thanks, Peter

I have a 212mb psd file (a panorama). I have Elements 6.0 and 4 meg RAM, Vista.
I went through the regedit process as outlined in Adobe Technote kb402760 and upped it to 1,000,000,000. I would think that would have given enough headroom for my file size. But it didn't. I still have the generic "file size too large" on my thumbnails.
I did note that the tech note had a different location for the Software/Adobe/Elements 6.0/Organizer (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ ) from the location in my file structure. In fact, this string was listed in at least three places OTHER THAN the one indicated in the Technote. How likely is it that adding "MaxImageSize" to the Elements 6.0 register locations other than specifically indicated is the reason why the file size capacity was not increased. Why doesn't Elements show up in the location indicated by the Tech Note?
NOTE FOR ADOBE: Why isn't this a more easily accessible option in the user interface? If I have a large file that slows things down a bit on my thumbnails, that could be my choice. This artificial constraint built into the regedits that no one goes to is too much like parental controls for 5 year olds.

Database much larger than expected when using secondary databases

Hi Guys,
When I load data into my database it is much larger than I expect it to be when I turn on secondary indexes. I am using the Base API.
I am persisting (using TupleBindings) the following data type:
A Key of size ~ *80 Bytes*
A Value consisting of 4 longs ~ 4*8= *32 Bytes*
I am persisting ~ *280k* of such records
I therefore expect ballpark 280k * (80+32) Bytes ~ *31M* of data to be persisted. I actually see ~ *40M* - which is fine.
Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ *35M*
This would bring the total amount of data to (40M + 35M) ~ *75M*
(although I would expect less given that many of the secondary keys are duplicates)
What I am seeing however is *153M*
Given that no other data is persisted that could account for this, is this what you would expect to see?
Is there any way to account for the extra unexpected 75M of data?
Thanks,
Joel
Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59
Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59

Hi Joel,
Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ 35MA secondary index consists of a regular JE database containing key-value pairs, where the key of the pair is the secondary key and the value of the pair is the primary key. Your primary key is 80 bytes, so this would be 4 * (4 + 80) * 280k Bytes -> ~ 91M.
The remaining space is taken by per-record overhead for every primary and secondary record, plus the index of keys itself. There are (280k * 5) records total. Duplicates do not take less space.
I assume this is an insert-only test, and therefore the log should contain little obsolete data. To be sure, please run the DbSpace utility.
Does this answer your question?
--mark

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.

FCP file sizes are twice the size of Quicktime's - any advantage to FCP?

When I capture footage from my Canon HV40 MiniDV using FCP, the file sizes are almost twice the size as when I capture using Quicktime's Device Native setting. Is there any advantage to capturing with FCP, as the quality seems the same in QT? Or is there a way to reduce the file size being captured in FCP?
I'd like to be able to capture in FCP because if there is a dropped frame in the recording, Quicktime stops recording, whereas FCP keeps going and starts a new file. But the larger file size in FCP puts me off.

Not all codecs are editable...meaning, not all work in an editing application. I'm not sure what "device native" captures as in QT. Does it say in GET INFO? But FCP captures HDV and DV native, but in a native format that it can work with. HDV comes in as HDV...Dv as DV.
I wouldn't trust what QT is capturing as DEVICE NATIVE. And 13GB/hour of footage is not that much. That's the lowest data rate format out there.
Shane

My hard drive is clogging up automatically. The personal folder is now 921 GB which is much larger than the sum of the subfolders. I cannot see what's causing this or prevent this from happening. Anyone?

My hard drive on my Imac keeps clogging up automatically. The personal folder is now 925 GB which is much larger than the sum of the underlying subfolders. I cannot see what"s causing this. Anyone?

You may try one of these utilities to spotlight exactly where the hard drive usage has gone crazy.
      DaisyDisk- http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/daisydisk/id411643860?mt=12
     DiskFalcon   - http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-falcon/id421781596?mt=12
Items to check manually:
     Duplicate iTune libraries, or music files that are in itune folder AND loose on the harddrive
     Download folder that hasn't been emptied
     Backup software location

Trying to email a video and the file size is to large to attach.

Trying to email a friend a video and it says the file size is to large to attach. How do I change this?

Go into your photo-video program and change the file size to the smallest resolution possible. Also limit the video to less than 30 seconds to a minute.
Then try sending again. The problem you are having is because the file is too large to send via the method you are using.
Good Luck

After duplicate operation, file sizes(Checkpoint file size) are different

HI
I have a some questions.
We are testing a 4-way Replication. After duplicate operation, file sizes(Checkpoint file size) are different in OS command(du -sh).
Is the normal?
TimesTen Version : TimesTen Release 7.0.5.0.0 (64 bit Solaris)
OS Version : SunOS 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
[TEST17A] side
[TEST17A] /mmdb/DataStore # du -sh ./*
6.3G ./SAMPLE
410M ./SAMPLE_LOG
[TEST17A] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ls -lrt
total 13259490
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 501 Aug 14 2008 SAMPLE.inval
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091428864 Jan 29 02:13 SAMPLE.ds1
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4113014784 Jan 29 02:23 SAMPLE.ds0
[TEST17A] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ttisql sample
Command> dssize ;
PERM_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 8388608
PERM_IN_USE_SIZE: 36991
PERM_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 36991
TEMP_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 524288
TEMP_IN_USE_SIZE: 5864
TEMP_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 6757
[TEST17B] side
[TEST17B] /mmdb/DataStore # du -sh ./*
911M ./SAMPLE
453M ./SAMPLE_LOG
[TEST17B] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ls -lrt
total 1865410
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 334 Dec 11 2008 SAMPLE.inval
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:25 SAMPLE.ds1
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:25 SAMPLE.ds0
[TEST17B] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ttisql sample
Command> dssize;
PERM_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 8388608
PERM_IN_USE_SIZE: 432128
PERM_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 432128
TEMP_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 524288
TEMP_IN_USE_SIZE: 5422
TEMP_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 6630
[TEST18A] side
[TEST18A] /mmdb/DataStore # du -sh ./*
107M ./SAMPLE
410M ./SAMPLE_LOG
[TEST18A] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ls -lrt
total 218976
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:22 SAMPLE.ds0
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:32 SAMPLE.ds1
[TEST18A] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ttisql sample
Command> dssize;
PERM_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 8388608
PERM_IN_USE_SIZE: 36825
PERM_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 37230
TEMP_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 524288
TEMP_IN_USE_SIZE: 6117
TEMP_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 7452
[TEST18B] side
[TEST18B] /mmdb/DataStore # du -sh ./*
107M ./SAMPLE
411M ./SAMPLE_LOG
[TEST18B] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ls -lrt
total 218976
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:18 SAMPLE.ds1
-rw-rw-rw- 1 timesten other 4091422064 Jan 29 02:28 SAMPLE.ds0
[TEST18B] /mmdb/DataStore/SAMPLE # ttisql sample
Command> dssize;
PERM_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 8388608
PERM_IN_USE_SIZE: 36785
PERM_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 37140
TEMP_ALLOCATED_SIZE: 524288
TEMP_IN_USE_SIZE: 5927
TEMP_IN_USE_HIGH_WATER: 7199
Thank you very much.
GooGyum

You don't really give much detail on what operations were performed and in what sequence (e.g. duplicate from where to where...) nor if there was any workload running when you did the duplicate. In general checkpoint file sizes amongst replicas will not be the same / remain the same because:
1. Replicas are logical replicas not physical replicas. Replication transfers logical operations and applies logical operations and even if you try and do exactly the same thing at both sides in exactly the same order there are internal operations etc. that are not necessarily synchronised which will cause the size of the files to vary somewhat.
2. The size of the file as reported by 'ls -l' represents the maximum offset that has so far been written to in the file but the current 'usage' of the file may be less than this at present.
3. Checkpoint files are 'sparse' files (unless created with PreAllocate=1) and so the space used as reported by 'du' will in general not correspond ot the size of the file as reported by 'ls -l'.
Unless you are seeing some kind of problem I would not be concerned at an apparent difference in size.
Chris

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for