Sorting by Size/Resolution?

Has anyone found out how to sort photos by size or resolution?
I'm looking to be able to quickly determine what pictures I can print in large format at home.
I don't want to have to manually key word tem for each size, Is there another way?

Similar Messages

What size, resolution, color space and bit do I use for a book?

What size, resolution, and color space do I use for a iPhoto book?

At least 150 DPI - actually pixel requirements depend on the print image size (pring image size * 150 will give you the minimum pixel size you need) - size is determined by the book size and theme and page layout you select - color space should be sRGB - minimal editing and using iPhoto for editing produces the best results - for more information see this article
If a photo is the wrong ratio and you can not crop to work in most themes you can right click on the photo and fit to frame
LN

IPhoto library too big -- how do I sort video, size to remove/archive?

Okay folks. So my iphoto library has gotten so big, I can't even install updates on my MacBook. Normally with any files on my computer, I can sort by size...see who's hogging up space and what I don't need. Not only can I not sort by size, I really have no way of managing these files in finder.
Advice?
Saw previous posts about "no sort by size". Someone even said "iPhoto is a photo manager, not a file manager" -- cute, but at some point the space runs out.

I really have no way of managing these files in finder.
It is strongly recommended that you do not use the finder to delete, move or otherwise modify any files within the iPhoto library - doing so risks corrupting your library and losing data
If you want to delete anything in the iPhoto library you must us the iPhoto program to do it
To identify your movies you can make a smart album for all items with the keyword = movie - selecting one and looking in the information window at the lower left hand corner will show you its size
LN

Sorting by size in lightroom

From Lightroom's first beta version I have been disappointed that there is no way to sort in the library module by image file size. Sorting by size is so common in computer programs. The mac operating system windows have had this option as far back as I can remember. I really miss it in organizing my files in Lightroom. I am presently using Lightroom 2.1.
Please add this to the next update.
Thanks.
Jim Klebau

I strongly support Simon Tindemans request
Simon Tindemans, "Allow import of and basic operations on non-image files (AVI, etc)" #15, 29 Jan 2009 11:41 pm (and I am sure from the others too, expressed or just wished for) that unsupported files should appear in the Grid mode with some kind of generic icon, and clicking on it would trigger the editing in the appropriate program (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) or allow copying them to some other location. Among 200,000-plus photos, still waiting in my server to be imported into LR and join those 100,000 already there - the legacy of my 7 years of the digital photography, there are the thousands of CMYK and PSD files, and digging them out by reading the printed list and then typing one by one the file names into the search field of browser's find feature, instead of just selecting the whole lot in the Grid module and opening them in the Photoshop with one click is, well, a stone-age method?
I also strongly support the James Klebau's request for file size sorting (and I add filtering too). Just as Mikael Albrecht, who explains the reasons for this to Wolf Eilers, the latter somehow not recognizing the need for this feature, and many others, I too have imported the thousands of jpg and tiff photos from the pre-LR and pre-RAW shooting era, all of them in the various sizes, from 600x400 pixels to 20x16" exhibition photos, besides the several hundreds of web albums' thumbnails which have crept in by mistake. To find them among the100,000-plus photos in the catalog is darn hard - I believe everyone will agree on this. Every other program, browser or DMA, has it and I was really surprised and disappointed when I realized that LR lacks this so common feature.
Finally I would like to see very much the additional Find and Replace option in the batch file (re)naming Editor. I have my own file naming system which besides the 4-digit file number suffix (usually the original one, sometimes created by sequence) incorporates also the 5-char theme and year prefix code, the location, and the 3-char code of the image type/purpose of the edited image (Exhibition, B&W, press, web...)
I often need to rename the batch of the photos, sometimes because I've goofed and exported the whole series of the photos, forgetting to change the previous file naming settings, but more often as at some latter time and for the various reasons I need to change the part of the file name - some code or the location - in the series of the photos.
When renaming the single file it would be also very helpful if the input field with the original file name would appear in the pop-up window besides the previous renaming setting, so one could simply (re)type in the needed change. In the Filename Template Editor, the only option where the file renaming can be carried out, the original name doesn't appear and the whole file name must be typed in - very cumbersome, time consuming, and error-prone. Perhaps this single file renaming option could appear in the context pop-up menu by right clicking on the image in question, upon which the input window would appear with the original file name already in the input window. Without doubt this would greatly expedite the single file renaming.
Misko

Why Cant I Add Drop Shadow? artwork size & resolution exceeds the maximum that can be rasterized

I am making a sign for sign writing. The overall size is 2400mmx1800mm. so its quiet big.
But When I go to put a drop shadow behind it it comes up with this -
" The combination of artwork size & resolution exceeds the maximum that can be rasterized"
Why is it saying this? How do I put a drop shadow on it?

Try scaling the sign down to 600 x 450mm and building your drop shadow at a more manageable size. When you deliver your file for output, tell the vendor to enlarge the file 400% in the RIP. If it still will not work, check your HD for scratch space. If there is not enough memory available to run the operation, you will continue getting the message until you clear some space and/or increase your RAM ( if necessary ).

Data retrieval buffers - buffer size and sort buffer size

Any difference to tune BSO and ASO on data retrieval buffers?
From Oracle documentation, the buffer size setting is per database per Essbase user i.e. more physical memory will be used if there are lots of concurrent data access from users.
However even for 100 concurrent users, default buffer size of 10KB (BSO) or 20KB (ASO) seems very small compare to other cache setting (total buffer cache is 100*20 = 2MB). Should we increase the value to 1000KB to improve the data retrieval performance by users? The improvement impact is the same for online application e.g. Hyperion Planning and reporting application e.g. Financial Reporting?
Assume 3 Essbase plan types with 100 concurrent access:
PLAN1 - 1000KB * 100 = 100MB 1000KB * 100 = 100MB (total sort buffer size)
PLAN2 - 1000KB * 100 = 100MB 1000KB * 100 = 100MB (total sort buffer size)
PLAN3 - 1000KB * 100 = 100MB 1000KB * 100 = 100MB (total sort buffer size)
Total physical memory required is 600MB.
Thanks in advance!

256 samples Buffer size will always give you a noticable amount of latency. If you use Software Monitoring you should try setting your Buffer to 64 samples. With the recording delay slider in the preferences->Audio you can compensate for the latency (of course not in realtime) so that the Audio will be placed exactly there, where it should hae been recorded at. In your case set it to a -value. A loopback test (check the link below) will clarify the exact amount of Latency occuring on your system.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1883662&tstart=0

How to make Image/size/resolution agree with metadata resolution?

After scanning the help file a bit and searching thru this forum a bit with `metadata resolution' as search criteria, I'm still pretty confused about how it is supposed to work.. I may have never actually found the right part of the help file.
Cutting to the chase: How can I make the resolution reported by the metadata tab for resolution agree with what is reported inside photoshop at Image/size resolution. I didn't see any way to set how res is reported in bridge.
I see many pictures reported in metadata as 72 ppi for resolution and reported in photoshop as 200 pixel/inch
They do BOTH mean pixels per inch right? If so, or really even if they don't how can I get the two reports to show the same resolution?
There are too many processes that depend on knowing res in advance of opening a file for that to be so far divergent.

Jingshu Li wrote:
Some JPG or Tiff with Camera raw settings will be opened in ACR firstly when you double click them. In ACR workflow option (the bottom in the ACR dialog) the resolution value isn’t same with that in Bridge (metadata panel). If you go ahead to open the image in PS by clicking ‘Open Image’ button in ACR dialog and then check the image size from Image -> Image Size in PS, the resolution will be same with ACR (actually it is changed by ACR).
If disable ACR support for JPG and Tiff in Bridge (Open Camera Raw Preferences in Bridge and choose ‘Disable JPEG support’ or ‘Disable TIFF support’ for ‘JPEG and TIFF Handling’), JPG or TIFF files will be opened by PS directly and the resolution matches between Bridge and PS. I believe this is an ACR bug.
So what file types are you using and if they’re opened by ACR firstly in your workflow?
The files are *.jpg. But I don't see where camera raw comes in. These are common jpg files. I'm opening them by double click in bridge.
Any way I did disable jpg and tiff in the Camera Raw preferences as you suggested. At Jpeg and tiff handling, both disabled. and restared bridge.
However, I see no improvment.
For example, a file reporting 72 ppi in bridge when opened in photoshop ... Images/size resolution reports 480 pixels/inch.
There is obviously some kind of miss handling that has been done to these files for them to have such a high resolution. I suspect they may have been handled at Walgreens or Walmart... or similar since I had something very similar happen to me once when I had a bunch of pictures developed at Walgreens and they cam back with resolutions like that, when I know the camera would have given them something way less.
But I don't see how any of that should be effecting Bridges inability to get the resolution right.
Here is another example: some.jpg
It appears that bridge is showing an unusually huge file size in inches, to account for the reported 72 ppi.
Bridge:
Size: ...............1.14mb
Dimensions:.....1496x1064
Dimensions in
inches ............20.8x26.7
Resolution: .....72 ppi
===========================
Photoshop:
pixels
Width 1496
height 2064
Document size
inches
width 4.987
height 6.88
Resolution 300
Do you have further suggestions?

Photoshop CC crop image size & resolution dialog box

In previous versions of Photoshop the "R" button displays the Crop Image Size & Resolution dialog box. Is this feature completely gone is CC? I can't find anything the even references this dialog box. Anyone out there have this issue?

In photoshop cc 2014, the size and resolution boxes will actually show on the tool options bar instead of a separate dialog window, by choosing W x H x Resolution from the drop-down menu.
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/crop-straighten-photos.html

Is there any way that I can sort images by resolution?

Hello
Have you guys found out any way or apps can sort images by resolution?
I've tried Path Finder and Forklift, neither of them can do it .
For now, I'm doing this with winxp on a PD5...

You can do this in Finder. If you cntrl+click on the saved search query folder for images you can add resolution (width and/or height). All Images> Show Search Criteria>click on the "+" sign click on the drop down list on the far left select other if you check the box to the right (In Menu) that criteria will show up in the list. I use 4 resolution criteria to eliminate small files when do a "random" search (greater than but less than). You can also save a new "smart folder" with the criteria.

IPad photos sort by size, largest disk size to smallest?

iPad photos sort by size, largest disk size to smallest?

PS. I searched for exact phrase "sort iPad photos by size" on Google and I am aghast that there were ZERO RESULTS.
https://www.google.com/search?site=webhp&ei=yEsuU9nNGYzkoASmmILoBQ&q=%22sort+iPa d+photos+by+size%22&oq=%22sort+iPad+photos+by+size%22&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i 22i30.19488.31073.0.31755.19.19.0.0.0.2.350.3389.0j15j3j1.19.0....0...1c.1.37.mo bile-gws-serp..2.17.2771.LsiZBTPRvQk

5G vs iPod Classic Screen Size / Resolution

Has there been in change in the screen size, resolution or # of colors between the 5G iPod (not the 5.5G) and the iPod Classic? I think there may have been a screen size change at least from the 5G to the 5.5G, but I'm not sure.
Tony

No, the screen size did not change at all from 5th Gen to 5.5 Gen. What they changed was to go with a brighter screen that used less power.
I have not seen any indication by Apple's marketing weasels on the web pages going on about a better, bigger, brighter, more colorful, etc. screen, so I am assuming that is uses the same screen as the 5.5Gen iPods.
I figure if it had more colors or something like that, that would be one of the new and improved features they would be going on about.
Patrick

Sort Index Size failed in file

Hi Experts,
Do you have any idea why we get this error in MDS log file? I am sure you must have come across it, what could be a fix for it?
We have observed Log info "Sort Index Size failed in file" logged into MDS Log file while doing following:
It happens during following processes:
a)_Master Slave Sync between Master and Slave Repo->> MDSAdminServer@GetAndApplyMasterChangeRep_
2010-08-05T12:00:01.012 14 23 Condition: pos < sortIndexSize failed in file /export/home/builder/mdm.build/7.1.03.xx/Cpp/MDM/Servers/MDS /DataMgmt/Update.cpp , line 1097
MDSAdminServer@GetAndApplyMasterChangeRep Dbg.cpp 65
Admin SRM_MDM_CATALOG_CHILDPROD3-DB- HA:1527/PMDORCL_21_20_4_3
b)_Remove Records from Data Manager->> CatMgr@RemoveRecords336_
2010-07-30T21:00:02.378 42 23 Condition: pos < sortIndexSize failed in file /export/home/builder/mdm.build/7.1.03.xx/Cpp/MDM/Servers/MDS/DataMgmt/Update.cpp , line 1097
MDSAdminServer@GetAndApplyMasterChangeRep Dbg.cpp 65
Admin SRM_MDM_CATALOG_CHILDPROD3-DB- HA:1527/PMDORCL_21_20_4_3
c)_Update Records from Data Manager->> CatMgr@ModifyRecords326_
2010-08-04T22:24:11.602 43 23 Condition: pos < sortIndexSize failed in file /export/home/builder/mdm.build/7.1.03.xx/Cpp/MDM/Servers/MDS/DataMgmt/Update.cpp , line 1097 CatMgr@RemoveRecords336 Dbg.cpp 65 49 harrik3 SRM_MDM_CATALOG <PROD3-DB-HA:1527/PMD[Oracle]>
As the Log Info name indicates "Sort Index Size failed in file", we are wondering is there anything to do with the -Size of Index File. Is there any parameter in DB side or in MDS which controls logging file size. May be that file size is not allowing Index sorting to be written into that file and file gets overflown due to less file size and MDS Logs this "Log Info". And since Indexing is not completed and not written into Index file, eventually the search made thru Advance Search gets weird and start throwing null pinter exception in browser because Index is not present for some searches.
This error seems like some unhandled exception code in program- Update.cpp at line 1097.
I would appreciate if you can throw some light on this and how to avoid this?
Regards
Pravin

Hi Jignesh and Ravi,
There is no Repo schema change and we made sure that we create new slave after any Repo schema change. I dont think there is an issue with master-slave, but issue probably lies some where else.
In fact my original question is scrambled. Let me mention it again clearly. Its not alone master-slave sync we get this log info-" Sort Index Size failed in file". Actually we get it during following 3 operations:
a) On Master Slave Sync between Master and Slave Repo->> MDSAdminServer@GetAndApplyMasterChangeRep
b) OnRemove Records from Data Manager in master->> CatMgr@RemoveRecords336
c) On Updating Records in Data Manager->> CatMgr@ModifyRecords326
Is there anything to do with the -Size of Index File. Is there any parameter in DB side or in MDS which controls logging file size. This error seems like some unhandled exception code in program- Update.cpp at line 1097.
_Pravin

What size/resolution is acceptable for FLV (in today's world)?

Hi!
I'm experimenting with video compression in FLV format. I don't know if my resources are outdated, but they seem to tell me that a size/resolution of, say, 240 x 136 is an acceptable size (I'm working in 16:9). This seems pretty small to me, especially by today's standards. For example, YouTube videos (and many other sites I've been on) have much larger videos than that. I want my videos to be comparable. So, I've been experimenting with 640 x 360. Am I crazy? Or, has this become one of the common standards of video size in today's tech-advanced world?
Thanks for your advice!
Vixter

Well, that's a question that can be answered many ways.
Personally, I've read that having the dimensions divisible by a power of 2 (8, for example)
makes encoding/decoding more efficient. So for 16:9 media I use 600x336.
It seems to look pretty good and work well with most net connections.
That's using Flash vp6 with a reduced framerate for maximum compatibility
across platforms.
For media that is shared among people with good Internet connections
and updated Quicktime, I'll go 1280x720 using H.264 for better image quality.
Don't forget that preparing the footage for compression can make a big difference.
If necessary, boost gamma a bit to bring out details. Crush the blacks. Etc.
The best way to make this type of decision is to take a test clip, encode it with different
resolutions, and watch it in different online situations (friend's house, at work, in a café, etc.).
What works?

OEM 10g - reorganize tablespace error on invalid sort area size

Hi all,
When I try to reorganize a tablespace with OEM 10g, I get an error in the 3rd step (options) saying :
Invalid value for sort area size. The minimum value is 96 KB. My SGA management is set to AUTO.
Why this error on sort size area ?
Thanks for your help.

Found a workaround. ( Not a real answer to the "why" )
My settings were : pga_aggregate_target : 400 MB
work_area_policy : AUTO
Following the documentation the sort_area_size should then default to 20% of SGA ( which is 1200MB ), and should thus be 240 MB, largely sufficient I would think ...
I now changed the work_area_policy to MANUAL, and the sort_area_size to 100MB, and then it works fine.
If anyone would have an explanation for this, it is still most welcome !
Linde

Pga and sort area size both are set in parameter file

Hello,
Both the pga and sort area size are set in the parameter file. Is this an issue? Are there conflicts? Can both be set and only pga will take effect? Db is 10.1.0.5.

hi,
might also be worth looking at metalink note Note:223730.1
rgds
Alan

Sorting by Size/Resolution?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for