Size Reduction

So, I have a problem. I have been trying to reduce the size of the published swf file but after I reduced the jpeg quality under settings to about 4 it doesn't change the size at all compared to when it was 80. Is there no way I can reduce the size of the file?

Optimize the images before you import them into Flash. For more savings in size, don't import them, load them dynamically as needed.

Similar Messages

What kind of processing does "export" do? (i.e., why the huge size reduction of the .mov?)

I have a .mov video I imported into imovie 11. All I did was add a title bar at the beginning. The original video size was 2.35GB. The exported .mov is 985MB. Why the size reduction? What processing happens on export? Does it affect quality. It was originally 1080p, 24 fps, .mov file from my video camera.

iMovie converted your file to a "more compressed" codec on export. Most likely when iMovie imported your video file, it converted your video file to AIC, a native codec that iMovie works with comfortably on high definition video (before importing into iMovie, your video file could be also quite small). AIC file takes a lot of space. Exported video files are for viewing, not for editing, so by default iMovie compresses the file to reduce the size. In fact you can change the default settings on export in iMovie (in menu "Share", "Export using Quicktime...").
Yes it affects quality, but usually you won't notice the difference. It depends on your viewing facility. Unless you have a high-end projector with 150' high-end screen, or a great video card with Eizo monitor, don't bother. In any case, you can always adjust the iMovie export settings to satisfy your eyes.

Does photo size reduction for e-mailing degrade photos?

In using iPhoto to send photos by e-mail one has the option of reducing the size of these photos from actual size to small, medium, or large size in order to transmit them more quickly, but what effect does this size reduction have on the quality of the photos?
I suspect that the size reduction degrades the images, but I have not been able to obtain any sort of definitive information on this subject, even when I contacted Apple tech help. Is there some knowledgeable person on board who can give us the story on this issue?
I like the idea of transmitting photos as fast as possible, but not if it means degrading the images by reducing their size to speed up the e-mail process.
Bob

Smtr,
Thanks for your helpful reply. I wasn’t concerned about the original photo retained in my library, but only about the reduced-size copy transmitted by e-mail.
I’m amazed at how much one can reduce the photo size for transmitting by e-mail. I just randomly selected a 3.3 MB JPEG image which can be squeezed down to only 63 KB by selecting the Small size in the Mail Photo window. I calculate that the reduced size photo would be only 1/52 the size of the original. I assume that the 63 KB image would be a very poor candidate for producing a print! I also assume that the 63 KB image, when viewed by the recipient on his monitor, would be a lot smaller than it would be if I sent him a copy at Actual Size.
Suppose the the recipient’s e-mail system could not handle the Actual Size 3.3 MB photo, so I send him a Large copy (414 KB) or a Medium copy (122 KB). Would either of those reduced-size photos produce a decent print as small as 4 X 6? I am trying to get a feel for how far I could squeeze down the size of one of my photos for e-mail transmittal before it becomes unsuitable for producing even a small print.
Comments?
Bob

RE: File Size Reduction by Hiding Layers

I've come across the trick of hiding layers to reduce file size, however am wondering exactly what is happening.
Here's my situation.
20.6mb PSD
Hiding the layers reduces the file to 13.1mb
I've been told that the file reduction is because preview images are no longer being generated.
Could preview images really be accounting for nearly 40% of the file size?
To test this I saved this file as a JPG at 100% quality (not for web) and yielded a 1.34mb file.
This leaves me with roughly 6.6mb of file reduction unaccounted for.
Is something else being siltently compressed/compatibility settings not included/other info being excluded from the file when layers are hidden?
NOTE:
I need to make sure my files have maximum compatibility for opening them in Lightroom and other programs that open PSDs like Painter - so compatibility settings are important.
I need to make sure that everything will still be setup properly for print and no compression is ocurring.
Could some please tell me what exactly is excluded from a file to lower the file size 40% when hiding layers?
Thanks!

Similar, yes... but that still doesn't answer my question
2400x1600px image
only a background layer
RGB 8bits/channel 72dpi
19.2mb
...hide layer = 9.91mb
.. white layer on top = 10.1mb (similar results as you said)
DIFFERENCE: 9.29mb
So, back to the question. Is it REALLY just the thumbnail/preview image taking up 50% of the file size in this case? Seriously? I would think that Adobe would be a bit more efficient with saving preview images. So...back to my earlier test to try and get a comparison of what a full size/full quality preview image would weigh, I've saved this image as:
high res JPG (not for web) = 1.55mb
compressed (layered) PNG = 3.64mb
compressed (layered) TIFF = 3.99mb
I also tried saving different combinations of layered/compressed versions of the PNG and TIFF files (although I think JPGs would be a more accurate representation of preview image file size). Uncompressed PNGs and TIFFs were far too large for the 9.29mb difference.
These don't even come within a couple of mb of the file size reduction from hiding the layers....
So, my question:
If hiding a layer is reducing the file size by supposedely rendering less pixel data to the preview images, then
- why don't any of these "mock" preview image situations come close to accounting for the size in reduction?
Even a layered lossless compressed TIFF still leaves an unexplained 5mb+ (9.29mb total file size reduction - 3.99mb TIFF)
I'm curious and need this for a specific (yet reocurring) situation at the workplace.
It really seems like there's something else that is happening when you save a file with layers hidden.
Is there any other possible scenarios (generating mutliple thumbnail sizes/sets, metadata based on pixel data, other information based on pixel data, silent compression, settings changing, etc) that could possibly explain this?

16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file, LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction.

I've got a 16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file that LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction. Can't figure out why it is downsizing so small? Even upsized to 420ppi in PS and the export was still only 2mb. Stock agency wants 3mb .jpg minimum. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Using PS CS6 with NO changes applied to the original TIFF the JPEG file size is 8.686 MB. The slightly larger file size is due to metadata differences between LR and PS.
Both Adobe applications (PS CS6 and LR 5.71) are producing near identical and much larger highest quality JPEG files. PS 12 Quality is the same as LR 100.
SUGGESTION:
1) Close LR and rename your LR Preferences file by adding the extension .OLD to it:
Mac OS X
Preferences
/Users/[user name]/Library/Preferences/com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist.OLD
Windows 7 & 8
Preferences
C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Preferences\Lightroom 5 Preferences.agprefs.OLD
Reopen LR and it will create a new Preferences file. Try the JPEG Export again using the same settings as I have posted.
2) If still no change I suggest uninstalling LR, delete the new LR Preferences file created in step #1 above, keep the .OLD Preferences file, and reinstall LR 5.71.
3) If all is well now close LR and try restoring you original Preferences file by renaming the new Preferences file something like .OLD.OLD and removing .OLD from the original file.

Amazingly inefficient file size reduction

I have some Texinfo documents that are regularly updated and from which HTML and PDF documentation is then produced. The PDF as it comes from Texinfo is about 850 pages, contains a lot of small graphics, and is about ~50Mb in size. When I use Acrobat (v9.5.1 running on Windows 7 x64) to reduce the file size, the process takes in excess of 12 hours to complete, and when I look at processes in Task Manager when the file size reduction has completed, I can see that the acrobat.exe process has read 61Gb and written 11Gb. At the end of the process, the PDf has been reduced from 50Mb to around 30Mb.
The machine on which Acrobat is running is not at all underpowered - it has an Intel core i7 CPU and 12Gb of RAM. Any suggestions on possibilities for speeding up the file size reduction. The excessively long processing time is not a one-off aberration - I've run the file size reduction half a dozen times now over a few months, and it takes this long to reduce the file size on every occasion.

Hi jamesfb,
You can do so by resizing your image. It will be under the More (&) menu> image size

Photo image : size reduction software

HI !
I want to reduce sizes of photo images i.e. jpeg, gif files of few GB's into less than 100KB. Need free / paid software compatible to MAC OS X 10.6.8.

Do you really mean image files of a few Gigabites? I doubt there are many apps that can handle that size of an image file and the machine would have to have many GBs of memory to even consider using it? Was that a type and you mean a few MBs?
Going from 2 GB down to 100 KB or less is nearly impossible and still get a decent image. This is an 4.3 MB file compressed to 100 KB with no reduction in the image (pixels) size.
This is the original file:
Click on them to see what they look like full sized. The edited version is showing pixelation in the sky and other areas.
This was done with iResize at 15% quality (jpeg compression) level. It was the only file resize I had that would get it down below 300 KB. Even Photoshop CS3 couldn't get it down below 230 KB.

Photo size reduction in iWeb

When I transfer photos into iWeb from iphoto how much reduction in size does it automatically make, I only have a website with 100Mb capacity

What type of page are you adding the photos to? If you're dragging a photo onto a regular page and resizing then the resulting photo will be rather small, particularly if you have iWeb's preferences set to optimize photos:
Click to view full size
If you're adding photos to a slideshow or a My Albums page the size will depend on if you allow downloading of the photos and what size to download as determined in the Inspector/Photos/Slideshow pane:
Click to view full size
If you don't allow downloading by setting the size to none then each photo in the slideshow will occupy approx. 70 KB of disc space. This photo page with 50 photos is 21.5 MB in size.
If you use a site optimizing application like Web Site Maestro you can reduce the site's size by up to 50%. My Demo 3 site went from 55 MB to 32 MB in size. My Old Toad's Tutorials site went from 10.7 MB to 7.2 MB.
The reduction in size depends on the type of pages you have. If you have lots of image files, jpeg, or movie files, they can't be reduced further so you won't see a big difference. However, png and html files can be reduced further.
I don't know how much you're paying for the service, if at all, but there are other 3rd party hosting services that you can get for about $3.95/mo that have unlimited capacity, one free domain name, etc. Just something to consider.
OT

PDF File Size Reduction

Currently, I am using Adobe Reader XI, but am looking for a version that allows for the reduction of the PDF file size. This is especially useful when e-mailing documents. Can anyone suggest the best version to keep the editing functions (ex. PDF to Word), but add the reduction capabilities?
Thanks.

Bill-
Thanks so much.
I’ll take a look at upgrading to Acrobat and see if that will do the trick.
I appreciate the response.
Thanks again.
Ed Perne
Corporate Director, Human Resources & Risk Management
11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 345
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(p) 310-235-2745, ext. 408
(f) 310-943-1600

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.

Response Time on DB size reduction

Hi Folks,
If i have a database size of 1TB and one of my reports has a response time of about 10mins for an instance. If i reduce the database size by 20% (which gives me around 800GB), what will be the impact on the approximate response time for that report?
Srini

Considering that the load remains the same ...
You need to check how much time the report is spending exchanging data with database.
Then you can expect that time taken with database will be directly in proportion with the reduction in size of database.
If the database size is reduced by 20% then you can expect the time to reduce by appx 5 - 15%.
Because most of the times the time is spend doing data exchange with database.
Regards,
Lalit Mohan Gupta.

CC BRIDGE FILE SIZE REDUCTION/NO ADJUSTMENT

In previous versions of ADOBE BRIDGE (CS4-CS5) the RAW file size was adjustable using the dialog box accessed from the bottom of the RAW frame. Set to MAXIMUM it produced an image 20x14 @ 21mb for JPEG files. Usable.
The NEW version of BRIDGE creates a file size 14x9@ 9mb for JPEG files.
Using a NIKON D300, shooting RAW, I cannot get a larger file size from BRIDGE no matter what I do. Same raw file loaded into BRIDGE (CS4) GIVES me the larger size, in CC...smaller file.
I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
Very frustrating.
Anyone know about this and if there is a workaround??

I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
Bridge CC uses a different way of resizing then before. You now have almost unlimited choices to set the wanted size using the new image sizing option in the same menu as before in ACR (blue line at the bottom)
Click on the checkmark in front of 'resize to fit' and select the option you want from the drop down menu, e.g. set to match the wanted Megapixels size. By default it stays at the last set option like it was before with the few offered presets.
Try it out, it would be nice to have the option to save your own presets but sadly enough this is not the case. However there are a lot more options to choose from

File size reduction from hard drive to iPod via iTunes?

Is it possible to reduce file size when adding music to iPod via iTunes? For instance, if I have downloaded songs at 320kbps and have a file that takes up, say, 10MB on my hard drive can I reduce this in size when transferring to iTunes/iPod so as to increase available storage space on iPod?
Thanks.

Nope. iTunes only offers this option for the iPod shuffle.

Illustrator file size reduction

Illustrator 11.0
Win XP Pro SP2
Adobe Acrobat 6.0
Why are ai files so much larger than the pdf's they generate. For example I cut and pasted an excel spreadsheet into Illustrator. No bitmaps or rasterized data.
ai file is 2.5Mb (acrobat compatible, compression on)
ai file is 7 Mb (compression off) yikes!
saved as pdf 2.2Mb
printed to adobe acrobat 6.0 24kb (maintains vector output with great zoom)
these are all vector files and there is a 100 to 1 size ratio between them.
If I take the small pdf and use the edit file command in acrobat and then re save the illustrator to ai file it is still over 2Mb.
I have a long framemaker document that will have 60 some line drawings and text and I need the ai files to be smaller due to memory considerations.
What can I do to shrink these ai files.? I don't want any bitmaps or rasterized illustrations in my end product pdf file.

Interesting results here. All tests conducted with AI 12 (don't have AI 11). All .ai files were saved with compression and no profile embedded. All PDFs were created via 'save as' or Distiller (print to PDF) using Acrobat 7 compatibility and Text and Line Art preset.
Downloaded [Test1 copy from xcell.ai], opened it in AI 12, stripped unused swatches, styles, brushes, etc. then saved as .ai with no PDF compatibility. Resulting file: 456 KB
Same as above but saved
with PDF compatibility. Resulting .ai file: 417 KB (!)
Same as above but saved as v11 .ai with, then without, PDF compatibility. Resulting .ai files: 1,011 KB
regardless of PDF compatibility (!)
As above but saved as v10 .ai without PDF compatibility. Resulting file: 412 KB
Again v10 but with PDF compatibility: 374 KB (!)
Saved as PDF with .ai editing preserved: 999 KB
Saved as PDF without .ai editing preserved: 133 KB
Distilled PDF (printed to Adobe PDF): 56 KB
Downloaded Excel file and printed to PDF from Excel. PDF file: 53 KB
That PDF file then opened in AI 12 and saved as v12 .ai with no PDF compatibility: 282 KB

Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution) that can not be changed. Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file). If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off). In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up. There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space. The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution. All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
Hope this helps.

File Size Reduction When Editing in Photoshop

When using Smart Objects my DNG file sizes increase from 9mb to over 100mb after a few adjustments.
I found that I can reduce the file size greatly, for example back to 9mb, by reducing the Image Size to, for example 300 x 400 pixels, without flattening.
Then I can save the file. The next time I want to work on it, I can open it, change the image size back to the original, for example, 2592 x 3872, and have all of my adjustments and filters available to make further changes.
Although, I cannot see any difference in quality, I am new to this, and I am concerned that I am not skilled enough to see the difference.
It would be very beneficial to store 9mb files instead of 100mb files and still have the same quality available, when needed.
Please tell me if I am missing something here.

Jeff,
With your guidance, I did an experiment. I made a Curves Layer and painted on the mask to reveal the adjustment. I then changed the file sizes as shown in the table, saved the file, re-opened it, and then re-sized it. (Image Size in pixels; File Size in megabytes). The comments under image refer to the painted area of the layer mask. As you indicated, I did not observe any degradation outside the painted area of the layer mask.
Image Size File Size Layer Mask Image
2592x3872 112.5 mb
800x1195 18.9 Intact Slight Saturation and sharpness
degradation
2x3 8.5 Blurred Major degradation
Thanks for directing me to the issue. This will allow me to make an informed choice when balancing quality with file size.

Size Reduction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for