Picture Quality - Different Files Sizes

Everything is working well on my ATV, but the one thing I have noticed is that small 2 megapixel JPegs taken on a camera 4-5 years back look better than pictures from my new Canon 5D 12.8 megapixel RAW. The pics from my 5D look over compressed and blocky! The source for the all the pics is Aperture.
Does any one have a solution this problem?
Cheers

sounds like aTV use a poor resize algotitme to downsize the pictures with a higher res
i would try to use your photo program to resize the pictures from the newer cam to the same size as the old one to make sure that Atv is bad at sizing the pictures down

Similar Messages

  • QuickTimePro - Export vs Save - Different File sizes

    Hi,
    with the trim to selection command I selected a bigger part of an AVI-video (Video track format: MPEG-4 DivX v.5 + Audio: Mpeg-1 layer 3 (mp3)).
    Although I did not change the video or audio settings I got different file sizes:
    The exported video has double the size than the saved file.
    Therfore my questions:
    What is the reason?
    What should I prefer - export or save - trying to get smaller files with the same quality?
    Thanks for a tip.Greetings from the heart of Germany
    Herbert

    HI mrfibuli
    I think you are seeing a general housecleaning of things that
    were formerly in your library. For example, lets say you took a
    fairly large project. Perhaps 80 slides. Then you delete 60 slides.
    This would leave many items in the library. They would be there,
    but be unused. So you save as, and after a couple of times of doing
    this, the unused objects are purged from the file. This is why you
    are seeing a difference in size.
    Sincerely... Rick

  • 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

  • Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with CS3 and CS6 and get the same problem. Doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

    Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with both CS3 and CS6 on 10.8.2 and get the same problem. This doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

    this one is actually a really rare symptom of a flaky connection to the ipod on a Windows PC. there's more going on in terms of hardware on nanos and 5th gens than in the earlier models ... so if the connection is flaky to precisely the right/wrong degree, itunes will see the ipod, but misidentify it as an earlier version of ipod.
    tracking down the cause of the flakiness can be tricky ... as you already know ...
    just checking. have you tried connecting with a different (known-good) USB cable? does that seem to have any impact on the rate of occurence of the problem?

  • 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 a third party app installed on iphone 4s and ipad 2 gen the app is different file size say 1.1mb on ipad vs 888kb on ipad any idea?

    I have a third party app installed on iphone 4s and ipad 2 gen the app is different file size say 1.1mb on ipad vs 888kb on ipad any idea?

    its possible that since the ipad version of the app is the version made for ipad and the one for phone is made for phone that they could be different sizes because they are programmed differently. Also possible that since they are this way one may have had more updates to it than the other so it may have more added data to the app than the other one

  • Trying to understand different file sizes based on publishing options

    Hi,
    I have a project that when published was coming out with the .swf at about 15.9MB.  This is in Captivate 7.0.1.237 with the following settings (defaults I believe):
    Compress Full motion  recording swf file - unchecked
    Retain Slide Quality Settings - checked
    Jpeg: 80%
    Advanced Project Compression - checked
    Compress SWF file: checked
    It seemed strange that all the things in my library came out to about 5 MB and previous projects (with fewer images, fewer slides and less than 1 MB of things in the library) had come out at only 1-2MB.  Such a big jump in .swf size didn't seem to make sense, especially if I wasn't adding that much in new assets.  All of these projects have a lot of video, but those are external. 
    So I tried unchecking Retain Slide Quality and set the Bmp to 8-bit.  5.7 MB output which seemed to make sense for what the project is, but yuck - aliased images and some weird color fringing on single line edges.  Then I tried High(24 bit) and my project is still only 5.7 MB, so I guess there are very few things in my project that it was actually adjusting down (probably only .png files, not the pictures which are .jpg).  I see that previously my individual slides are set to Optimize, which I would expect would have been giving me a smaller sized project all along when it was using Retain Slide Quality Settings. Hmmm...
    Then I tried unchecking Advanced Project Compression to see if it would give me a bigger size... nope, still at 5.7 MB.  It would seem that leaving this unchecked would be a good thing, if it doesn't do anything.  Any reason to check this if it isn't reducing file size?
    What are best practices here?  It seems to me that unchecking Retain Slide Quality Settings, unchecking Advanced Project Compression and putting the Bmp to High (24 bit) is the best option for my project.  But why isn't optimized more optimized?  And what am I loosing in those 10 MB of .swf?  Am I loosing quality or stability somewhere that I haven't noticed yet?
    Thanks for any insight.  I'm still scratching my head.

    Advanced Project Compression tries to optimise the compression settings on a slide-by-slide basis for better overall file size reduction.  It's usually NOT a problem.  However, in some cases we advise developers to turn it off as it is often responsible for 'artifacts' such as 'ghost lines' appearing on slides.
    I usually find that using High 24bit compression actually gives lower file sizes than using the Optimized setting.  Go figure...

  • Same Process, Different File Sizes

    My newness is surely showing but I seem to be getting different results from a very similar compression process.
    Video A is 1 minute in length. I edited a long video, marked this footage as an Independent Clip, pulled it to the browser bin, then exported as H.264. The file size came out 8MB, nice and small. The source is DV, 4:3, recorded on a cheap 1-chip.
    Video B is 5 minutes in length. I split a long video into subclips based on markers set by "DV Start/Stop Detect". One of these subclips I edited further, down to 5 minutes. I added an AV fade-in at the start, fade-out at the end. It's the only thing in that sequence. When I export the sequence as H.264, the file size comes out to 1GB. All variations I try on export quality and codec results in that size or larger. The source material is DV, 16:9, recorded on a Canon XH-A1 (3-chip).
    I'm trying to track down what's causing such a huge disparity. Is it the quality of the source footage? The aspect ratio? The difference between Independent Clips and Sub-Clips?
    I'm trying to get the 5-minute video on YouTube. I'm having a hard time uploading 1G. Any suggestions?

    Hello,
    Try MPEG 4 instead of H.264 and I think you'll end up with a smaller file size. When you control click on your sequence and select Quicktime Conversion - click on settings and try adjusting the frame size too and see if that helps to make the file smaller. You can also play with quality.
    I cannot answer why there's such a huge difference between those two files even though one is only four minutes longer than the other. As far as sub versus independent clips, I cannot say anything about that either.
    Good Luck,
    Richard

  • 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.

  • IPhoto duplicates/messed up import? Different file sizes?

    After transferring photos from our old Mac to the iMac, there are now many duplicate photos that I'd like to clear out. (My partner did the transfer, so I can't tell you the specifics of what went wrong). There are numerous events titled Original and a second event of the same photos, although there may be more photos in the second event due to created duplicates that have been modified. Comparing the two events, the photo file sizes are smaller in the original set than in the second set. Why is that? For otherwise identical photos, which should I delete?
    And is there any reason not to open iPhoto from the dock and delete duplicates?

    (My partner did the transfer, so I can't tell you the specifics of what went wrong).
    I can tell you what they did wrong - they Imported your old iPhoto library into the new one - NEVER import an iPhoto library into another iPhoto library - it does not work, created massive duplication and an unusable mess
    You can use iPhoto and delete duplicates (do it in batches of 100 or less emptying the iPhoto trash and system trash every batch)
    The better solution is to go back and do it correctly - If the old Mac is still available and working  trash the bad iPhoto library on the new system and Connect the two Macs together (network, firewire target mode, etc)  or use an external hard drive formed Mac OS extended (journaled) and drag the iPhoto library intact as a single entity from the old Mac to the pictures folder of the new Mac - launch iPhoto on the new mac and it will open the library and convert it as needed and you will be ready move forward.
    LN

  • Fat32 reports different file sizes???

    I tried to copy files from one Firewire drive to another. The source files were on a drive formated fat32 for use on a windows boot camp disk. When I copied to the Mac OS Estended disk the file sizes were much different. What's up with this -- were the files copied correctly?
    Thanks for your help!!!

    FAT32 uses a different block size than Mac OS. If you check the actual size of the file rather than the space occupied on the drive they should be the same. However, if you copy a Mac file to a DOS disk some of the Mac file may disappear into another file which is the resource fork. Now you cannot copy just the file back to the Mac, you must also include the resource fork or you won't have a complete file. This is because Mac files and DOS files are not "assembled" the same way.

  • Best quality, smallest file size

    I have a 3.5 minute motion project which includes the opening credits to a video I am working on - how do I go about getting this into Final Cut Pro with the highest quality possible? I am very new to Final Cut Studio, so some input would really be appreciated. The video is already an hour long, and this needs to fit on a 120 minute DVD, so file size is crucial - unless it will be taken care of when the entire DVD is compressed. Thanks!

    What is your current timeline format in FCP? Either bring the .motn file directly into FCP (it'll be treated as a QuickTime file) or export with the same codec/dimensions as your timeline.
    Then export your timeline from FCP using Export Quicktime Movie... as a self contained or non-self contained and bring it into DVDSP...
    Patrick

  • Image Processor quality settings / file sizes

    Hello,
    I have been searching around and am coming up empty handed, looking to find out how to get large images (fullscreen web slideshow, would like the images to be 1024 pixels wide or bigger), and maintain quality, yet not be over 700K. Here is an amazing example - http://lambertgroupproductions.com/canyon/zoominoutsliderswp/images/opportuneFullScreen/05 _opportune_full.jpg - 2500 pixels wide, looks GREAT, and is 248K. Any idea how this is being done?? I've tried everything with Bridge and PS, and even looked at other programs to help reduce the file size without harming the quality too much. What I'm running into is one of two problems - the file looks great but is way too big, or - the file size is okay, but the jpeg quality is so low, it's very grainy / blurry! Even with fast internet connections now, I'd still rather have the photos look good and not force the users to wait more than a few seconds to get all the photos to load.
    Any help is much appreciated!
    Trevor

    In Photoshop use the option to Save For Web (Photoshop / File / Save for Web).
    Inhere experiment with the settings. I made a sample I set to 2500 pix wide, bicubic sharper, jpeg Low and Quality 10. The saved file only had a size of 450 kb.
    I can't show that sample here in 2500 pix because this site only accepts 450 pix wide images to insert but this file here demonstrates a bit more what I mean. I have set this in SFW at 450 pix wide and low jpeg 10. The result is a file of only about 20 kb in size, not suitable for enlargement but just to show you their is still a bit of quality while only 20 kb of file size:
    When setting jpeg High and quality 60 in SFW you end up with around 100 kb and a very nice quality. If you want to check the 2500 pixels edition (size of around 450 kb, and looking very good) you have to download it yourself using this link:
    http://we.tl/q7UQP0cXeC
    (send via We Transfer, a free upload and download service). It will be available until 26 may 2013 before it is automatically deleted from their servers. Or drop me a private message so I can mail it to you personally

  • Spooling of a query generates different file sizes for different databases

    Please help me regarding a problem with spooling. I spooled a query output to a file from two different database. In both the databases the table structure is the same and the output produced only one row. But the file size is different for the databases. How can this problem occur? Is there any database parameter need to be checked? Both the databases are in same version 10.2.0.1.0.
    before running the spool i did a
    sql> set head off feedback off echo off verify off linesize 10000 pages 0 trims on colsep ' '
    on both the sessions.
    In one database the filesize is *1463 bytes* and on the other the filesize is *4205 bytes*.
    Please help me to find out these discrepancies.

    hi Mario,
    I think you are not getting my point. Both the files contain the same output but their sizes are different. This is due to the no of blank spaces between columns. I wanted to clarify why there is a difference between two filesize when the query output is the same.

  • Whcih codec/settings for best quality, smallest file size?

    Hi,
    This is probably a really frequently asked question, and I apologise for that.
    I've been  searching for an answer and the only information I can hastily find is at last a year old, some stuff dating from 2008
    Forgive me - even though I'm studying media, I have no idea about codecs or the best ratio to use or anything.
    Basically, I need some advice over which settings to use on my video. The work needs to be a really high quality, as it will be displayed on a projection screen for an exhibition, but I'm sending it over the internet, so I need a compromise between file size and quality.
    One of my tutors has told me that I should always be using the ProRes 422 codec, but when I use that, and export the video in 1080p, it comes out at 3.5GB which is just ridiculous.
    It has to be sent off ASAP, as the exhibition is on the 21st.
    If anyone has any advice to me, that would be amazing.
    Thank you in advance.

    Hi, thank you so much for your reply.
    It's a college project, and the person we were working with is a Doctor in sound. We had to record environmental sounds and create soundscapes for them. As media students though, we were told to make animations, or videos to accompany them. My video is just some of my photography, with some titles, and an AIF music file. Sound is his thing - he wouldn't know what settings I should use.
    The project is in 1080p 25 frame. I asked my one of my tutors, and he told me I was right in exporting it as ProRes 422. I used the Adobe Media Encoder and the youtube setting, which has taken a copy of the file down to 177.5MB and I'm burning a copy of the 3.5GB one on to disk in hopes I can get it there somehow.
    It's all a bit vague to be honest. My friend's project is 1080p. I'm pretty sure it's the standard size we use for all our projects. The projectors should be set up to handle it.

Maybe you are looking for