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

Similar Messages

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Image quality and report size

    Hello,
    I have a problem in the export to PDF document. I use CR 10.2 with Visual Studio 2005 in a web application.
    My problem is that I have a report of photographies, in wich I need an aceptable image quality. I don´t show the report in an report viewer, I create the report document and export it to PDF sending the memorystram in the http reponse.
    Firstly I see that the PDF document image quality was so bad. Then I checked the report property "Retain original color depth", and the image quality was good, but the PDF size was too big, two photographies of about 2MB(each one) generates a PDF file of about 20MB size.
    I need to send the pdf files to the clients via email, but the files are so big, and if the cllient inserts 10 photographies, the report size would be of about 100MB. Is there any wallkaround to this issue?. Is there this issue fixed in crystal reports XI?
    Best regards

    See [this|Crystal to PDF; thread. As unsatisfactory as the answer may be, it is what it is...
    I believe R&D is looking at this issue, but as an enhancement for a future release of CR.
    Ludek

  • Image dimensions and file size, why the change?

    Here's a Friday puzzler for ya
    I just ran a batch on a couple of thousand orthophoto images (RGB + 1 alpha channel geo-tif) to add some typographic information to the bottom of each image. All the files were saved in PS as flattened, standard uncompressed tif. EVERY image is 10k x 10k pixels. After the process we noticed that the new set of files were consistently smaller than the original images! Not by much mind you, but with this kind of spatially mapped imagery it makes you wonder if we are missing anything:
    before: 720013700.tif = 381 MB = 390,704kb (400,080,750 bytes), size on disk 381 MB (400,080,896 bytes)
    after: 720013700_DRAFT.tif = 381 MB = 390,648kb (400,023,280 bytes), size on disk 381 MB (400,023,552 bytes)
    So my supervisor asks "why"? and that leads me here. I thought about a few answers - 1) pixel values changes for white text take up less space? 2) No geo-tif header information written back to the file (that's a separate step after the PS batch using another app), so we'll know about that one. 3) Bit fairies took the 56kb.
    Any ideas?

    You say uncompressed…  So you didn't select any compression at all during the save of the TIFF files?  If not, white text replacing image data couldn't have changed the size by itself.
    You mentioned geo-tif header information...  Was this header in the file before you opened it with Photoshop?
    I don't really know the internal format of a TIFF file; perhaps Chris Cox can say something about this.
    -Noel

  • Shedding light on export settings and file size

    I am trying to learn about exporting images and file size. I have a combination of RAW and JPEG images in my library. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to limit this to JPEG's. I need to export my images, so that I can then upload them to an external photo processing site like Kodak.com. I was going to export versions of my images because I have made adjustments to many of them. I was going to choose the top level preset of "JPEG - original size." For the sake of example, the file that I try exporting this way has a file size (in Aperture) of 1.94 MB. After exporting it (with a DPI of 72) and a color profile of sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (I am not sure what the significance of the DPI and color profiles are either), I get an exported image with a file size of 4.6 MB. When I export the master image, I get a file size of 2.0 MB. I'm completely confused and at a loss as to what is going on here.
    Can someone please shed some light on how to go about exporting images so that I can be certain that I am exporting the best quality image possible.
    Also, and possibly more importantly, I export image files to sites like MobileMe Galler, Flikr and Phanfare, etc, for the purpose of archiving my images and now I am not sure if the files I am exporting are of the optimal most quality they can be. Do these settings have any bearing on the images that are being sent to my archival folders?
    Thanks in advance for any input on this important topic.
    Mac

    This confusion is because of the way Jpg files handle data. Jpg is a kind of file that compresses data to achieve a balance between image quality and file size. The jpg file that your camera saves to disk is also compressed, that's why the difference in size between a 2 MB jpg and the same image in Raw is for example 18 MB.
    Jpg is a lossy compression format, every time you save a jpg some compression is applied, say after editing in Photoshop. Aperture must be reading your jpg masters to export jpg files to disk, so the difference in size should be the compression quantity applied to the newly created jpg file. I could have a 1 MB jpg file previously compressed with a quality level of 7, but if I export it at a compression quality of 10, the file could easily become a 2 MB file. The problem is quality doesn't increase with file size when the original file is a jpg.
    Also some files include a preview image inside the file, increasing the final file size. The color profile embedded should't increase size by much, since most camera jpg files already include a color profile embedded (color profiles tells computers to display color consistently between applications and peripherals like printers. sRGB is widely used for images published on Internet).
    As for the images you are sending to the archival folder, I would suggest you to export the masters, instead of exporting a new jpg file from an already compressed jpg master.
    I know this is a complex subject so I hope I haven't confused you.

  • Does reducing image size reduce image quality?

    i 'm new to AI and also to this forum.
    I know that enlarging and image can reduce image quality.
    I'd like to know if reducing the image size (not in pixels, but in actual size),
    will reduce the quality?
    i have a Ai file that's 600x300, and need to reduce it to 300x120 my websie.
    Before I convert it to a web format, I want to reduce this large Ai file to 300x120.
    Will i still lose quality even if it's still an Ai file, before converting to web format???
    thanks!!!!!

    No it is however best to use save for the web to do so for the best optimization.
    keep in mind the only lose in quality will be if some one grabbed it off of the website and tried to enlarge it or view it at a larger display size.
    What you want to do is the best way of reducing the size.

  • !! Exporting SWF file in PDF reduces image quality.

    Hello,
    I have a file with many multi-state picture frames and buttons for them. I export it in pieces in SWF format, then I put the SWF's back in the document as a new layer and export as interactive PDF. Finally everything worked fine, except that PDF opens in a larger then normal zoom and when zooming in on pictures the quality is very poor I am guessing 72ppi at the intended zoom. I check the SWF file and see that its image quality is good when zoomed, so the problem is with the way the PDF has exported the SWF.
    notes: I made sure the settings were to export at 300ppi and high image quality. When I take a single multi-state frame with its associated button and export to SWF then PDF the image quality is maintained.... however I have over 150 image frames, so I rather not export them individually. Please, please reply... any suggestions will be gratefully excepted.

    edit your image in photoshop and experiment with various settings/size.  there's no magic high quality small file size setting.
    it's a trade-off.  the higher the quality and the greater the image dimensions, the greater the file size.  you have to decide where those are acceptable.

  • Firefox mage quality and resolution was superb when I used XP and Vista. Now that I have Windows 7, however (with the Firefox 3.6.3 version), the image quality and resolution is poor. Please help me!

    I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
    == This happened ==
    Every time Firefox opened
    == I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.

    All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
    http://www.dcgdcreative.com
    Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
    The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
    The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
    The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
    I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
    Whats the deal?

  • Stop images from losing file size when scaled down?

    Ive read this tutorial;
    http://joedasilva.com/blog/?p=32
    and ive just found out that if you scale an image smaller,
    the file size is permanently decreased, and enlarging the image
    again will make it pixalated. If im working with images and I want
    a lot of freedom to play around with the scaling, do I need to
    convert them all to grafics?
    Is there a setting I can change so that the images are saved
    at the display resolution when I export them, but maintain there
    full file size when in the document? Is this how illustrator works?
    thanks

    quote:
    Originally posted by:
    jdldn
    Ive read this tutorial;
    http://joedasilva.com/blog/?p=32
    and ive just found out that if you scale an image smaller,
    the file size is permanently decreased, and enlarging the image
    again will make it pixalated. If im working with images and I want
    a lot of freedom to play around with the scaling, do I need to
    convert them all to grafics?
    Is there a setting I can change so that the images are saved
    at the display resolution when I export them, but maintain there
    full file size when in the document? Is this how illustrator works?
    thanks
    There is no such a thing as a "grafic." In your Fireworks
    document, you can have bitmap objects and vector objects. Bitmap
    objects, such a photographs, are rectangular objects with detailed
    information, where the color and transparency of each pixel is
    specified. Vector objects are mathematical objects, where the shape
    is determined by nodes and the color is determined by the fill
    type. You cannot convert a bitmap object to a vector object
    (although you can sometimes create a vector illustration that
    resembles a photograph).
    If you are still experimenting with your design, what you can
    do is add a layer with your original-sized bitmap objects. Put this
    layer at the bottom of your stack and keep it hidden. Then, anytime
    you feel a need to refresh an object that you've resized too many
    times, copy that object from your originals layer. It may not be a
    perfect solution, but it should help you.
    I've never had a problem with multiply resizing photos,
    myself, because I design my layouts with vector shapes first. Once
    I have all my proportions set,
    then I add any photos I have. With this worflow, I know what
    size to make my photos. Of course, I might change my mind, later,
    but my process keeps me on track.

  • 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?

  • IPhoto09 Export has both a "JPEG quality" and a "Size" option

    In iPhoto09 Export has both a "JPEG quality" and a "Size" option. What is the difference? iPhoto Help does not clarify. Size seeems to constrain the size of photo on screen, and it is not stretchable. 300 dpi no matter what options are selected.

    Jpeg Quality is the amount of compression applied to the file.
    Size is the dimensions of the shot - length by breadth - measured in pixels.
    There is no dpi setting, nor any default setting for dpi. Dpi is sent when you decide the dimensions of the photo when you print.
    Regards
    TD

  • I print 2 pages to pdf and file size is 600k, I print 1 additonal page and file size goes to 6M, what would cause this (graphics are same on all pages)

    I print 2 pages to pdf and file size is 600k, I print 1 additonal page and file size goes to 6M, what would cause this (graphics are same on all pages).
    I know the colour graphic shading in the document that causes the issue of larger file size, but it doesn't make sense that printing 1 additional page with same information as first 2 pages would cause this.

    I print 2 pages to pdf and file size is 600k, I print 1 additonal page and file size goes to 6M, what would cause this (graphics are same on all pages).
    I know the colour graphic shading in the document that causes the issue of larger file size, but it doesn't make sense that printing 1 additional page with same information as first 2 pages would cause this.

  • Procedure or Function that send E-mail with image background and file attached

    hi
    I4d like know if someone there is a procedure or function that send E-mail with image background and file attached, for me.
    thanks
    Josi Vieira

    If you go to this part of OTN you will find the official Oracle UTL_SMTP demo, which includes attachments:
    http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/pl_sql/htdocs/Utl_Smtp_Sample.html
    Getting a background is slightly trickier. The UTL_SMTP package is for primarily sending text e-mails, whereas images require HTML e-mail. I suggest you look at the structure of a sample HTML e-mail and see if you can write the necessary HTML strings in the DATA parameter. Otherwise you'll need to investigate handcrafting a program based on the UTL_TCP package.
    [rant]
    If this seems like a lot of trouble I agree and urge you not to bother. HTML e-mail is one of the curses of the modern age, not least because it is frequently used by purveyors of viruses. I have a filter on my Outlook client that strips out all the HTML in any e-mail I receive, which means I get lots of e-mails rendered unreadable by the inclusion of <HTML> tags. But who cares, they're mostly spam anyway. In fact, the use of HTML in an e-mail is almost always an indicator of the irrelevance of its content.
    [rant]
    Vibes, APC

  • 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

Maybe you are looking for

  • After put the Android on Nokia N-9 Please neeeeeee...

    After downloading the Android on Nokia N-9 you switch the device off and when you run This is then remain Nokia signal and then comes back the same image again Is there a solution to this problem Attachments: 2-27-2013 2-15-15 PM.png ‏178 KB

  • Can't send any e-mails?

    Hey all, I used to be able to send e-mails but all of the sudden it says I cannot send any. Basically any mail server I try to use (I have several domains on different servers and tried all of them) and none of them work. I'm using mail.domainname.co

  • Alphabetical Artist listing of artists with 'The' in their name

    Previously my nano would ignore the 'the' in artist names such as 'The Used' and 'The Hush Sound', ordering them by the second word. However, when I started using my ipod today, it no longer ignores the 'The' and has collected all artists whose names

  • Feedback page for iPhone???

    Hello, I was just going to leave feedback about an iPhone problem, but the only Operating systems offered in the drop down box are for Mac and Windows. What are we supposed to enter there? Thanks.

  • Positioning of OAMessagePromptBean

    Hello, i created OADefaultListBean and OAMessagePromptBean, and attached OADefaultListBean to OAMessagePromptBean. i am trying to display the Prompt string on top of the list-bean (OADefaultListBean) not on its left. Does anyone know how to achieve t