Size of jpg reduced

When I attach and send a picture Mail reduces the size so much that the receiver cannot see it. I would like to scan receipts and forward them for business use (to get reimbursed). How can I force Mail to send scanned pictures of my receipts the full size that they are on my HD?

Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
What option have you chosen in the New Message Window?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

Leopard's Preview and print size of JPG

Why doesn't Preview print the actual size of JPGs? Under tools in Preview's file menu, a JPG's size can be adjusted. However, these size settings don't seem to reflect the size of the printed picture. If the scale for printing is set to 100%, the size does not match the actual size of the photo. Any suggestions or explanations?
Thanks,
Joseph Strong

Are you saying that the print preview on the print menu dialog doesn't match with what will actually print, but if you print at 100% it will print at the size expected? I didn't actually try that. What I did was pick a scale % that gave a print preview (on the print menu dialog) that looked about right and printed that way. It worked, but that seems like a pretty hokey way to do it. If I resize using Preview and then import the resulting JPG file into another graphics program, the sizing is perfect. The problem seems to be that when printing from Preview the program wants to automatically fill the printed page with the graphic, and I can't seem to tell it not to. I just want the actual image size.
Thank you,
Joseph Strong

Photo jpeg size is slightly reduced

Hello,
I recently downloaded a photo from a web on my laptop. The size of JPG file was 431,606 bytes. Then I downloaded the same photo on iPad and lately copied it on my laptop. I found out that the size of JPG file comming from iPad was slightly different: 420,912 bytes.
I checked and found out that the photo resolution stayed the same.
Why the size of JPG file comming from iPad is diffrent? What has been changed?
Thank you in advance
Sergei

Dear IIIaass,
Thank you very much for your reply.
Yes you are right - if you sync photos from a PC, iTunes optimises them to match iPad screen resolution.
Here we have a different situation - I save photo from a web or E-mail and as I understood the JPG file should be preserved. But it is not the case.
The reason I am asking is because I would like to purchase iPad camera kit and use my iPad during vacations to backup photos from my camera. I would like to be sure that the quality of copied photos remain the same and critical information is not removed from the JPG files. I suppose that iPad uses the same approach for coping files from the camera kit and web.
Thank you,
Sergei.

Optimize JPG image size reduction by reduced compression quality vs. reduced pixels?

I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592). Although I will be saving these as lossless TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size. Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size. My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing JPG compression quality. Thank you

Thank you Doug. The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind. My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices). As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements.
In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome. So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best". But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published. In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described. I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
Thanks again.

How do I reduce MB size for jpg photos?

How do I reduce the MB size for a group of photos I took. I want to save these reduced photos and send them to a client.

IF you want to reduce just the file size and not necessarily the dimensional size...
Create an action to "Save for Web", and run a batch using that action.
I'll show it on a Mac but it's the same for Windows.
1. Open one photo.
2. In the Actions panel click the menu selector and choose "New Action.
3. Name the action and click "Record".
4. Press Alt+Ctrl+Shift+S to Save for Web (Alt+Cmd+Shift+S on Mac).
5. Select a save destination and then close the file, selecting "Do Not Save" when you do so.
6. Press the Stop button.
7. Click File>Automate>Batch.
8. Choose the parameters for the batch and click "OK"
It'll reduce the file size of the photos you chose.

Searching for original image size of jpgs inserted into iBooks Author.

Does it matter or does iBooks filter and change the jpg within program after inserted? Does the jpg become part of the iBooks Author file or read the original jpg until collected for publishing?
I'm creating a full-page layout with images for a children's style book. The jpgs insert small and I've been dragging each one to fill the page. Look great on my MacBook Pro but don't know how they translate into iPad as I don't own one. The jpgs' outer boundaries cross onto the next page to fit as I want it too.
If I knew the exact size of the iBooks Author page and the pixels allowed, I could crop in photoshop and insert it meeting the dimensions. Can't find dimensions of the page size in all my reading.
Thank you!

You should size/crop outside and then bring in...
See:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5117 / working with images
Re: Exact page size?

Help with compress function--file sizes not substantially reduced

I've tried to use the compress function (right click "compress" or Finder/File/Compress) a few times on files from a variety of different programs. While this results in creating a zip file, the file size is not substantially reduced (e.g., from 43.4 MB to 42.9 MB). Is there a way to change how much a file is compressed?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Eric

Not all material is very compressible. Text files and word processor documents usually compress very well. Photos and movies don't compress much if at all due to the nature of their structure (in some cases, using a general-purpose compressor can actually make a file larger). So it will depend on what it is you're compressing.

Disk size is drastically reducing after the Dense restructure

After Clearing empty blocks the number of blocks are coming down by 10% showing that empty blocks were existing in the database. At this point in time total size of .PAG file remains constant (Before and after clearing empty blocks).
We did a restructure of database the number of blocks remained constant but the .PAG file has drastically reduced to less than 50%.
We are trying to understand why would the 10% block reduction is casuing the disk size reduction by 50%.
Thanks for your inputs!
Edited by: user3942062 on Mar 14, 2013 3:31 AM

The .pag file contains free space, not just that left behind by CLEARBLOCK EMPTY but also where blocks have been modified and no longer fit back into their original slot (so Essbase has to expand the .pag file to fit them back somewhere else). For example, if a block is taking up 2K on disk but you then load additional data, the block's footprint on disk may increase to 3K. Essbase can't fit it back into its original 2K location, so it leaves that 2K chunk of the .pag file empty (at least for the time being) and finds 3K elsewhere.
Only restructuring the database physically releases this space.

Size to be reduced

hi all,
how can i reduce my classfile/program/jar size from command line?

You could remove debugging info
javac -g:none MyClass.java

Size of jpg for dvd menu?

When burning a dvd in FCPX (I'm running 10.0.9), it's possible to place a jpg in the menu, as sort of a cover image. Does anybody know the ideal pixel measurements or aspect ratio for that jpg? Whenever I put a jpg there, FCPX automatically crops it to fit, and I would very much like to put an uncropped image there for a project I'm working on. Thanks for your help!

It doesn't look like a standard aspect ratio…looks wider than 2.35:1..
You could experiment with background image sizes and shapes by saving the exported files as a disk image and displaying the menu in DVD Player. Trim the movie to a couple of seconds to speed things along.
Russ

Question on Blu ray image size output and reducing the size

Hi
I have been using encore for blu ray projects which is been proving very helpful. However recently i have had a issue with output size on files. Normally Encore gives me it's estimate that it will fill the disc nicely and provides a image/folder which is about 17-20GB (using 25GB disc) but now out of the blue it's files sizes it outputs has been 24.8GB which technically is less than 25GB but as anyone knows who burns to media, the disc doesn't actually have 25GB of space (something like 23,8 or something, i can't remember without checking). Anyway of course this is a issue because my output size is contantly now coming up to be about 600MB - 1GB over the disc actual size, i figured Encore normally compresses files to fit considering i have burned similar amounts/size media before and never had a issue.
Anyway my issue is the slightly larger file size, i figured the easiest way to reduce the blu ray output size was to of course play with the transcode settings, which usually are set to the default settings for Blu ray (the quality preset is called something like "1280x720p 50 High Quality MPEG-2") so of course i thought to lower the bitrate a little just for a test, so i did just that and cut the default bit rate from 25[Mbs] to 20, i didn't want to lower it too much as it was a test to see what i could save for file size. Anyway so i re-transcoded the file and built another image, sadly the image size oddly enough came out as 26.something GB... so it actually grew in size by reducing the file bitrate which put me at a loss. I was wondering what common ways i could use to lower this file size just by a few hundred MB or up to 1GB in this case without having to remove content from the disc (it would be a waste to not only seperate the content but to use a whole disc for a leftover 600mb-1gb project). I of course want to keep quality as high as possible but i understand when trying to reduce size quality has to normally be hit in these situations so i can deal with a slight loss of quality. I have been browsing the forums here and though some topics seem similar they have the issue of file sizes coming out as 40GB+.
Now im no genius with Encore, normally as said the file size is always between 17-20GB as i figure encore was using a "fit to disc" type feature but because the output size is technically below 25gb but not actually below enough to burn i was wondering 2 things:
1) is it possible to make encore it's self shrink these files a little more, lowering the target size down by 1GB would do wonders but only option i have seen is to have a 25GB disc or DL disc with no option to customize the output size (forcefully lowering it by 1GB).
2) because i imagine the above can't be done i was wondering how to go about reducing the size by around 1GB or so, i don't need like 10GB freeing up so it's only a small amount, as said this is a issue i have had with the last few projects i made and the size varies from needing 600MB - 1GB (it doesn't usually exceed needing 1GB free space... besides when i lowered the bit rate which increased size a lot). In the past i always just cut the bitrate of files down a little (never by lots but enough to free space up) but clearly that failed my test so im at a loss of how to reduce file size without a huge loss in quality.
For the record i have already produced the file as both a image file and a folder and both have the same issue.
Extra info on the project:
It contains 4 Menu's, 13 video files which vary in lengh from short ones at about 5mintues to longer ones which the largest is about 20minutes. I commonly burn this number of video files/space with fine quality and no issue so i would rather not take files from the project.
quality preset details are defaultly as said above set to "1280x720p 50 High quality MPEG-2" settings, i am not on my computer with encore at the moment so i can't post full specifics right now but if you have encore handy you should be able to check.
Tried reducing bit rate but that increased overall size, the actual plan was to hopefully lower the bit rate to around 21 [mbs] (from 25) and then do that for multiple (or all) files until it fitted but after it increased the size i lost hope there, it said the estimated file size (on the individual video) would drop by around 300-400mb but that didn't work.
I have tried both folder and iso which always come out the same size.
Basically my main question/problem is any suggestion to drop the file size by up to 1GB without taking items out the project or a real high loss in quality (i don't mind small loss though as i can apply whatever solution to all files which should help).
Any suggestions what i can try? as you probably gather im not a genius when it comes to this stuff but i tried including what i thought is relevent.

Hi and thank you for the reply;
one problem i seem to be having when reducing the bitrate is the file size is oddly increasing from 24.8GB to 26.4GB, i can't really figure this one out as well it's having the oppisite effect. I checked the "streams" folder on output and decided to compare automatic transcoding to manual lowered bitrate and im not too sure where the increased file size is going, i found which video file it was causing the issue, all videos files range or average around 1.6GB each but one file was taking 4.5GB, after lowering that files bitrate it cut it down to 2GB which was of course saving me 2GB from the old file but the overall size had increased which was odd. Seems the other files are all the same so it hasn't tried improving them (so it seems) so i can't make ends of why the size is increasing.
I will try playing with the source file to see if i can do anything that way, if not i will try transcoding in premiere (i have had troubles with this before so i try to avoid it).
Oh and yes i was using Automatic.
Anyway i will see if editing the file outside might help first and see how that works. Thanks again for the reply.

Windows reports one size for jpg, Photoshop says it's something else

This has baffled me for years and I've always meant to pop the question to experts.
So here goes. (WinXPPSP3, CS5)
If I pick a jpg (taken with my camera, say) at random on my hard drive, and go View > Details, the SIZE column will say (for example) 3,059KB.
If I mouseover it in the NAME column, it says 2848 x 2136 - Size 2.98MB.
If I right-click it and check the properties it says Size: 3,131,411. Size on disk: 3,133,440.
OK, I'm comfortable with all that and I know that the disparity in properties is caused by cluster use. So all that is OK.
But if I open Photoshop CS5 then browse to and open the same pic, then go Image Size, it tells me the image is 17.4MB.
This in spite of the Pixel Size being the same as above, ie, 2848 x 2136.
The other dimensions in PShop's boxes are: Width - 100.47cm, Height - 75.35cm, 72 pixels\inch.
Scale..,Constrain..., Resample...boxes are all checked. (Bicubic)
(Image Mode is RGB, 8 Bits)
Could some kind person explain what's happening here?
Thanks 8-))

Donald Reese, thanks. So you're saying that Windows' assessment of a jpg is always correct, then?
In that case, let's say I open my example pic in Photoshop (2.98MB jpg which unpacks to 17.4MB)
If I make a bunch of changes to that image, like size, density etc etc), as long as Image Size still shows an overall size of 17.4MB, when I save it as a jpg, it'll go back to 2.98MB?
Noel Carboni, thanks. (Hope I got your name right - I'm doing this reply by memory. How does one keep the whole thread on screen?)
So if the size is basically width x height x 3 bytes per pixel, that makes my image 2848 x 2136 x 3 = 1.825MB in round figures. Is there some other overhead that bumps the size up?

File Size Will Not Reduce

I am having an odd problem that I cannot resolve. In LR5 I chose about 15 images to Export as jpeg's onto my hard drive. Within the Export Dialogue Box I chose Resize To Fit and set it at 2.5 megapixels. 14 of the images resized correctly. One image, however, resized at 7 megapixels. Even when I went to the extreme of trying to export it using the Export Dialogue Box in LR5 to the size of 400 megapixels at it longest edge with the image quality at 39 (at 72 dpi) the image was still 5.9 megapixels in size!! So I opened it in Photoshop and tried downsizing it then saving it using the Image Size Dialogue Box (which indicated that the size was 310.5K), but when I look at the file info in the Finder Window (I use a MacPro) it says the files size is 5.7MB but the dimensions are only 400x265!! What is going on? Thanks in advance for your help.

Iam working on banner production, is their any better software/tools for SWF optimization/compression?
I got one SWF and FLA from other creative team, SWF size is below 50 KB look's better quality, I have changed some small amends, when i was exporting it from FLA... the SWF file weight goes to 90KB, i compressed image quality then, expoted again... the file size goes to 70KB. how can i do 50KB in better quality.
Thank you for your help!

Image size is being reduced - not sure why?

Help! I have edited a slew of images and need to print them to large prints (over 24x30). When I export the images, the size is 11 x 14. The original files are HUGE - I am not sure why the size is being compressed. I am sure it is a simple fix but I don't know what that is.
I have a Mac OS X and Lightroom 3.
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Angie

Did you crop the image? Did you set the output size in pixels in the export dialog box?
A 5184x3456 original cannot be printed at 24x30 because the aspect ratios do not match. The fact that the aspect ratios of 4264x2843 and 24x30 match indicates that you cropped the photo. But you cannot print 4264x2843 at 24x30 at 360 ppi (not dpi) because there aren't enough pixels in the photo. 24x30 at 360 ppi is an image that is 8640x10800 and you don't have that many pixels. You can still print it at 24x30, but at a much lower ppi.

ZFS work with Ldom and zvol REFER size can't reduce

Anyone can help to take a look following:
I do the zfs simulation below and show below output.
1) Create image file
root@solaris:/a# mkfile 200m img.img
2)Create test pool use img.img file
root@solaris:/a# zpool create -f test /a/img.img
root@solaris:/a# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
rpool1 3.79G 11.8G 92.5K /rpool1
rpool1/ROOT 2.24G 11.8G 31K legacy
rpool1/ROOT/solaris 2.24G 11.8G 2.23G /
rpool1/dump 768M 11.8G 768M -
rpool1/export 89.5K 11.8G 32K /export
rpool1/export/home 57.5K 11.8G 57.5K /export/home
rpool1/swap 817M 12.5G 123M -
test 91K 163M 31K /test
3) Create zvol on the test pool
root@solaris:/a# zfs create -V 100m test/zvol
root@solaris:/a# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
rpool1 3.79G 11.8G 92.5K /rpool1
rpool1/ROOT 2.24G 11.8G 31K legacy
rpool1/ROOT/solaris 2.24G 11.8G 2.23G /
rpool1/dump 768M 11.8G 768M -
rpool1/export 89.5K 11.8G 32K /export
rpool1/export/home 57.5K 11.8G 57.5K /export/home
rpool1/swap 817M 12.5G 123M -
test 155M 7.89M 31K /test
test/zvol 103M 163M 16K -
root@solaris:/a# zpool status
pool: rpool1
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
pool: test
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
test ONLINE 0 0 0
/a/img.img ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
4) Use the zvol to create apool
root@solaris:/a# zpool create -f apool /dev/zvol/dsk/test/zvol
root@solaris:/a# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
apool 92.5K 63.4M 31K /apool
rpool1 3.79G 11.8G 92.5K /rpool1
rpool1/ROOT 2.24G 11.8G 31K legacy
rpool1/ROOT/solaris 2.24G 11.8G 2.23G /
rpool1/dump 768M 11.8G 768M -
rpool1/export 89.5K 11.8G 32K /export
rpool1/export/home 57.5K 11.8G 57.5K /export/home
rpool1/swap 817M 12.5G 123M -
test 155M 7.88M 31K /test
test/zvol 155M 162M 1.13M -
root@solaris:/a# zpool status
pool: apool
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
apool ONLINE 0 0 0
/dev/zvol/dsk/test/zvol ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
pool: rpool1
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
pool: test
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
test ONLINE 0 0 0
/a/img.img ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
5) Make file on the /apool
root@solaris:/apool# mkfile 10m test
root@solaris:/apool# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
apool 9.39M 54.1M 9.28M /apool
rpool1 3.79G 11.8G 92.5K /rpool1
rpool1/ROOT 2.24G 11.8G 31K legacy
rpool1/ROOT/solaris 2.24G 11.8G 2.23G /
rpool1/dump 768M 11.8G 768M -
rpool1/export 89.5K 11.8G 32K /export
rpool1/export/home 57.5K 11.8G 57.5K /export/home
rpool1/swap 817M 12.5G 123M -
test 155M 7.55M 31K /test
test/zvol 103M 151M 11.5M -
6) Remove 20m test on the apool
root@solaris:/apool# rm test
root@solaris:/apool# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
apool 316K 63.1M 31K /apool
rpool1 3.79G 11.8G 92.5K /rpool1
rpool1/ROOT 2.24G 11.8G 31K legacy
rpool1/ROOT/solaris 2.24G 11.8G 2.23G /
rpool1/dump 768M 11.8G 768M -
rpool1/export 89.5K 11.8G 32K /export
rpool1/export/home 57.5K 11.8G 57.5K /export/home
rpool1/swap 817M 12.5G 123M -
test 155M 7.53M 31K /test
test/zvol 103M 150M 12.9M -
7) Make snapshot on the zvol
root@solaris:/apool# zfs snapshot test/zvol@snap
root@solaris:/# zfs send test/zvol@snap > /tmp/zvol.snap
root@solaris:/tmp# du -sh *
14M zvol.snap
** The snap file and the REFER size are same, but the real size on the apool is 31K, how can I update the zvol REFER size***

Hi
Please show resut for zfs list
Check Refer for:
apool
test/zvol@snap
test/zvol
You make backup of test/zvol@snap not apool.
Refer size for it wil different.
In case You need backup of apool You should make:
root@solaris:/apool# zfs snapshot apool@snap
root@solaris:/# zfs send apool@snap > /tmp/apool.snapUsed space on device is not corresponede used space on FS, becouse device do not know what realy need.
It's only know what writen on it some time.
Regards.

Size of jpg reduced

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for