SWF Size and Quality

Do these settings actually work?
I have published the same file (consisting of 2 screens) to the three different quality settings: high, medium and low.
High output - 711kb
Medium - 352kb
Low - 352kb.
So what's the difference between medium and low?

I am using Captivate 5.
I am talking about the publish settings - Preferences > Project > SWF size and quality.
I'm just using the presets that are in Captivate 5 and these are the only settings I am playing with.
Here's a screenshot:

Similar Messages

Do the settings under Preferences Project SWF SIze and Quality have any impact on HTML5 output?

I can see how Audio quality and Jpeg quality could be affected by making changes here, but I'm not sure if it actually makes any changes in the HTML5 version. Can anyone shed some light?

Hi Noel,
Me again, sorry for that.
The default quality for slides is Low (8-bit), to have the smallest filesize for output possible. But in a lot of situations this quality is too low, after all this means that you only have 256 colors (like in GIF-images) which is too low for most photographic images and certainly also for images with (partial) transparency. And as you perhaps already saw in the forums, some fonts do gain a lot if you increase slide quality.
To increase slide quality you have two options:
either you check each slide and change the quality to High or Optimized if necessary, and only then;
or you just override the slide quality at publishing and in that case you uncheck the mentioned option 'Retain slide quality', and set all slides to High
The second option is the easiest one but means that all slides will have High = 24-bit = 16777216 colors available. This will result in a larger filesize than option 1 where you only increase the quality for the slides that need it. If you choose option 1 you do not uncheck 'Retain slide quality'.
Never used it, but for a quick publish with lowest quality you could also use option 2 if you have changed some slides to higher quality, to have all slides again at the low quality.
Lilybiri

Taking photos to disk without losing photo size and quality

I have tried everything I can think of to create photo cd's and dvd's with my photos downloaded to aperture, but every time I try to burn the photos are decreased dramatically in size and quality. I cannot give the cd's to clients, because the photos are no longer enlargeable. Any ideas please help.

Welcome
Go to Help >> Aperture User Manual
Read: Working with Export Presets page 505
DLS

Sending pictures on BBM gets lower size and quality

My friend has Bold 9000, and I have Bold 9700. When i send a picture to his bb through bbm, he recieves it in full size and quality, but when he sends me a picture from his bb to mine through bbm, i recieve it in a lower quality and size then the actual picture. we both are using the latest bbm. please help

Well before you uninstall the BlackBerry, you can create a backup using Desktop Manager. Also you can wireless backup your BlackBerry Messenger contacts within BBM.
To create a wireless backup:
1. Open BlackBerry Messenger.
2. Press the Menu key and choose Options.
3. Scroll down to Contact List, and click on Backup.
-ViciousFerret
Come follow your BlackBerry Technical Team on Twitter! @BlackBerryHelp
Be sure to click Like! for those who have helped you.
Click Accept as Solution for posts that have solved your issue(s)!

Movie export size not available/balance between size and quality

Hi,
I imported some film into iMovie 08 from my Canon HD camcorder, at full 1920 x 1080 size. After I finished editing it, I wanted to export the final movie at 960 x 540. This size is not available under the "standard" share options ("large" is 1280 x 720 and "medium" is I can't remember what exact size but smaller than 960 x 540). Similarly, when I go into "Export using QuickTime" and try to create an H.264 movie there, the 960 x 540 option simply isn't available. What gives?
The reason I wanted to use this size was to try to cut down on file size. I exported the movie at 1280 x 720 and got a 380Mb file. So I wanted to try it at 960 x 540 and see what difference that made to the file size and quality. Since I couldn't seem to do it using iMovie, I ended up taking the 1280 x 720 video and using ffmpegx to convert it to 960 x 540. The problem is that I ended up with a file that was, bizarrely, even bigger (384Mb), and that had a thin green line across the bottom of the video.
So, in summary, my three questions are:
1. Why can't I export from iMovie in 960 x 540?
2. Why does my ffmpegx conversion result in an even bigger file?
3. What's the best way for me to get the optimum balance between file size and quality? (For viewing on Apple TV/HD television).
Thanks in advance,
Rob

Another very good 3rd party slideshow application is PhotoPresenter. It has some of the nicest themes I've seen in any slideshow application (including the Apple TV introduction theme) and will export to a variety of sizes up to 720 x 480 which is DV-DVDCPRO - NTSC.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Is there specific order to adding footer, watermark, ORC scan, security and optimization to get best size and quality results?

Does it matter what order that the following are done to a document? Are there any guidelines of best practices to know?
- Adding meta data
- ORC scan to searchable image
- Footer/Page Number
- Watermarks
- Save as optimized PDF
- Security
Is it possible the results would be different (files seize and quality) if the above steps are done id different orders.
The example I am thinking of is:
- If footer and watermark is done first, will ORC scan that content or give errors that some parts are already text ?
- If the file is first optimized using good quality image resampling, will that ruin the ORC results if optimization is done first?

Hello Scott,
I have a question about a weird behaviour of the gmaps rendering: When I navigate the first time to gmaps, everything is rendered correctly...but if I navigate back to homescreen and then again to gmap, the gmap is rendered in a very small area of the page on the left side...Why such a rendering issue?
Maybe you are aware of that. Thank you!
Best regards,
Rufat

Need to export Movie to Quicktime Movie w/ similar file size and quality.

Let me preface in that I am not in the video editing profession. Many times I have exported my work to the professionals. I'm sure knowing what you're doing is half of the battle. Here is my dilemma. First, I'm using Quicktime pro just to add a text track to the movie. I then save the file as what Quicktime pro calls Movie .mov. This looks good and has the quality of the original .mov and the small data size. However, no other player than quicktime will recognize the text track. I then tried exporting from Movie to quicktime movie format (still .mov, can anyone explain the difference of the two .mov types???), but I find that the image quality is poor. Yet, in the quicktime format other players (except windows media player) recognize the text track. By poor quality I mean that I think what I have is the blocking effect. I assume that this is due to the bitrate being to low. Again, I would like to keep the file size low and managable for data storage and downloading purposes. I was hoping that in the end all video players would be able to have no issues.
My current file sized are all less than 1MB and are of good quality.
Just adding a small test track the Movie .mov is still less than 1MB
The size of the image is 512x512
I should also say that I'm a PC user with a quicktime pro windows version. I'm sure that doesn't help me one bit!! However, I believe my issues are more with the fact that I'm not experienced in compressing files and knowing exactly the right settings.
Here is what I've tried thus far. Movie to quicktime movie
H264 codec
Current for fps (Which is in the original is 8fps)
Key frames automatic
frame reordering checked
I've tried Automatic data rate and setting the bit rate, even at 2000kbps (the quality is low). My original movie with the highest kbps is only 1151kbps and has no artifacts
encoding Best quality multi-pass
custom size 512x512
deinterlace checked

am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
Yes, as long as you have iPhoto's iCloud preference pane configures as follows:
You're be getting the full image file, pixel dimensions, etc. which is essentially a bit by bit copy of the photo on the Phone.
When you add tags and other metadata and export the file out of iPhoto as a jpeg with the checkboxes selected to include that metadata there will be some image compression. However, if one chooses High or even Medium JPEG Quality one will be hard pressed to detect any image degradation unless printing very, large prints or otherwise displaying the image at a very, large size.
I ran a test on a 1.4 MB photo from my iPhone and compared the original to two exports, one at High and the other at Medium JPEG Quality and got these results:

Export QuickTime file with new audio and maintain the file size and quality as the original.

I shot some footage for a client yesterday and ran into an issue. To make a long story short I have QuickTime mov files shot with my Panasonic GH4 that have a buzzing sound in the audio track. I have clean audio from a recorder that can be sync'd. Is there a way for me to do this for the client and deliver them as the same QuickTime file but with the clean audio and keep the file size close to the original and not have quality loss in the image?
If so I will probably put all of the spanned clips together from each interview and sync the audio before delivery. I am just not sure which codec will give the client the same quality footage compared to the originals and not have a massive difference in the overall file size. They did request that they be Quicktime MOV files though so that is a must.
I don't see this as an option in the codecs in the export settings in PP, but is there a way to export as ProRes or another MAC native codec that will save them from having to convert it on their end? I am on a PC with Adobe CS5.5 so I am not too familiar with MACs, but from what I understand they would need to convert the files if I sent them straight out of the camera.
I found some related search results for this but they pertained to "Best quality" for export. I am not sure how the varying options work but I don't want to create files that are considerably larger, just not less quality.
If anyone has experience with this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Cole

Here's the workflow: I imported the video footage into iMovie '08 and did my edits. Then I exported it (share) to my desktop with compression set @ 740 X 480. Then I used QuickTime Pro to fix the audio track. The file plays perfectly with both audio tracks working. It's a QuickTime file (.mov).
I hope this jars any replies as to why the file when uploaded to my iWeb gallery drops the second audio track.
Hmm,
Jack

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Jpeg export size and quality issues

aloha,
I use a lot of photos in articles on the web and size them to about 250 x 166 pixels. I just tested Aperture, Photoshop CS2, Fireworks 8, and Graphic Converter at levels of low, med, high or 30, 60, 80 or 4, 6, 9.
The best quality in terms of sharpness, clarity and color was PS CS2, with Aperture second. But Photoshop's files were 12, 24 and 36 k respectively, where the Aperture files were 72, 74 and 88k. In fact even at quality 0, the Aperture-generated jpeg was 64k. Fireworks were 4, 8 and 16k but surprisingly poor quality. Graphic converter was 116, 120, and 124k, with decent quality.
It appears that Adobe's engine is more adept at re-sizing and compressing (not entirely surprising). It leaves me with a bit of a workflow issue, since opening the files from Aperture into CS2 leaves me with a gigantic .tiff in Aperture I don't need.
Full size jpegs could be exported from Aperture to a folder, then opened in Photoshop, resized, and saved for the web. I can automate the Photoshop part of it, but would need some help automating the whole process.
Any information and suggestions folks have would be appreciated! I am curious as to why there is a floor on the Aperture jpeg sizes. Maybe I need to turn some option off? I'd love to keep my workflow within a single program.....
mahalo,
paul

What we need are the clip properties & sequence settings in Final Cut Express. Your screenshot is from a Finder window.
It would appear you have a clip with nonstandard frame size (1366x768) in an H.264 file. FCE cannot edit this material. FCE is limited to specific codecs and frame sizes. You need to convert your clip to QuickTime/Apple Intermediate Codec. If it's highdef widescreen then convert it to QT/AIC 1920x1080i. Try using MPEG Streamclip to convert the source clip.
You also need to be using a matching Easy Setup in Final Cut Express. If your source media file is QT/AIC 1920x1080i then you should select the AVCHD Apple Intermediate Codec 1920x1080i60 Easy Setup in FCE -AND- then create a new sequence before importing your clip into FCE and placing it in your sequence (timeline)

File size and quality of images from iphone to mac to exported jpeg

there is a lot of good info on this forum regarding jpeg compression, iphoto export etc but i want to confirm a couple things..
i have 'my photo stream' enabled so that i can upload my iphone photos to my mac and my plan is to use iphoto (im just starting to do this)...
yes, i understand that the 'image' taken by iphone is stored as 'data' and some of that data (and potentially pic detail/quality) can be lost/reduced/discarded when you ask an application to export a .jpeg with a high, med, low compression applied.
am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
e.g. i can export a 'full size' jpeg from the iphone and i see a 3.2MB file. if i look at that photo in Iphoto and export original.. i get a 3.2MB file. i assume that the original image was only compressed once?.. when it was originally stored on my camera roll in the iphone?
If i just want to use iphoto to add tags, description... i am required to recompress the image into a file and my choice of MAX compression yields 10MB (which is more space but no more detail vs HIGH compression which yields a 1.9MB file (which most likely is less image detail). there is no way to get the same original 3.2MB amount of data but with the appropriate text fields added into the new jpg file ? would it be much better, at least in theory, if i could get the goldilocks file size, ie just enough compression to have a similar file size as the original ... seems like my choice is 50% less or 300% more ?!?

am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
Yes, as long as you have iPhoto's iCloud preference pane configures as follows:
You're be getting the full image file, pixel dimensions, etc. which is essentially a bit by bit copy of the photo on the Phone.
When you add tags and other metadata and export the file out of iPhoto as a jpeg with the checkboxes selected to include that metadata there will be some image compression. However, if one chooses High or even Medium JPEG Quality one will be hard pressed to detect any image degradation unless printing very, large prints or otherwise displaying the image at a very, large size.
I ran a test on a 1.4 MB photo from my iPhone and compared the original to two exports, one at High and the other at Medium JPEG Quality and got these results:

Placed Image Size and Quality Difference

Hi Everyone,
I'm running Adobe Indesign cs6 Version 8.01
I have a document that is 2048px x 1536px (for iPad Retina display Resolution).
I reszied all my images to be roughly 1140px x 760px at 300PPI
When I place the images in Indesign it Resizes the image to 272px x 180px
The effective pixels are and actual pixels are 300PPI at the resolution I resized them in photoshop according to the links section
The quality of preview is set to High Quality
In the preferences under File Handling Preserve Image Dimensions when Relinking is on
I tried saving the image in Jpeg, Tiff, and PNG formats to solve the problem
I set my default object style to Place Gun Frame and make sure Auto-fit is checked and Content Fitting is set to None.
What can be done to rememdy this problem?
I just want the images I resized in Photoshop CS6 to be placed in the exact dimensions as I resized them to make placing files simple and easy.
If you can please help with this problem as soon as possible I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you so much

Hi Peter,
Thank you for your quick Reply.
I saved it at 72ppi and the appearance changed to the actual PX dimensions specifed.
Hope Adobe can fix this glitch to adapt display the image using the Pixel dimensions and not the image dimensions (size in inches or points).
Thank you so much.

Question about size and quality...

Hey guys, i just finished editing a video that's only 7 minutes long but is 1.5 Gigs, which is huge. And the quality of the video isn't that great. Im new to FCE and i'm still trying to figure out how this all works, can anyone help? Is there a way to get maximum quality while keeping the size on the down low???
Thnx

the quality depends on the settings you use. Quicktime conversion gives you a lot of options, like if you select movie to quicktime movie (I think) you'll get lots of options, e.g. broadband high makes a pretty small video, but still pretty high quality as well. to get even more options, you can click the options button and move around the slider for quality and adjust the framerate etc.
It probably seems confusing, but some formats aren't just "better" than others, it all depends on what your going to use the clips for.

Urgent issue with video size and quality.

Ok, I have Premiere Pro CS4 and I am running on Windows 7 64bit. I have a movie that I have been working on for 2 years that already has hundreds of proper LightScribe DVD's, slim cases and printed cover wraps already done and paid for. I was supposed to already be done with this and selling copies, but Premiere has royally messed things up for me and I am now in limbo with the project.
The film was recorded with simple non-HD 4:3 camcorders. Some of the footage is from years ago and was uploaded via USB low quality, but it still looks fine on YouTube, my computer, and even when I burned a DVD with the footage alone unedited. The rest was uploaded with via DV and is actually pretty good quality for being 4:3 and non-HD. I took all this footage and stretched it out with a little bit of cropping to make it widescreen on Premiere. Again, it looks great in the preview and looks fine when I exported it as a WMV.
However, when I burned it to DVD, it was horrible quality and also chopped off the sides of the film on my widescreen TV, even though I exported the film as widescreen AND burned it on the widescreen setting! Why would it do that if it was made, exported and burned as widescreen??? Also the sound was terrible! And I exported on the highest setting possible.
Second, I heard that AVI is a better format, so I tried that. The file was absolutely huge and when I opened the file with media player it wasn't the same perfect fit as the WMV. What I mean by that is, when I watched the WMV, media player showed the video as a perfect fittig window, no excess black space on the top or bottom. Same thing with several AVI mainstream movies that I have on my computer (actual movies, like Terminator Salvation, Pandorum, Black Hawk Down, etc). They all fit media player perfectly, no excess black on top or bottom. So why is it that actual movies in AVI format and my WMV video and movie files are perfect fit on media player, but when I export an AVI from Adobe Premier, it adds excess black on top and bottom? That doesn't make any sense, especially since you can look at a preview of what the exported file will look like and it doesn't look anything like what the ACTUAL export is. What kind of a joke is this?
So I pretty much need help figuring out why the exported movie is horrible quality, especially on DVD that is so bad I cannot dare to sell it to a customer, AND I need help figuring out why my Premiere Pro exported AVI's look nothing like mainstream film AVI's that I have on my computer. Someone please help, this is really hurting my business!

hiya
well , you are certainly getting some really good help now...its like you fell into a room with the best editors and shooters and everything and you can get a lot of information and run with it...find out a lot of things.
Some of it requires you follow through on your own as much as possible ( like you have already ) by reading and googling things you dont know, etc... this forum and these guys is how I learned a lot about this stuff in the past year or so...so listen to what they say....google what you dont understand....you cant go wrong.
now...about what you said...
I exported the test clip as an MPEG2-DVD and it gave me a video file with NO SOUND, a separate WAV sound file, and two xmp files. This is not what I was looking for.
I have a movie project on Adobe Premiere Pro CS4. I simply want to export/publish the movie, burn it onto a DVD using Windows DVD maker and have it as top quality, like it looks in the preview monitor on Premiere. Tell me how to do it.---
I dont use encore to burn a dvd, but use DVDit PRO. It wants exactly what you got when you exported to mpeg 2 dvd ....a video file without sound muxed.. and a separate wav file....
I know it sounds weird but thats the way the program burns the DVD....and that has to do with making the VOB files etc for the DVD...which is just the way it is....you see the vob files AFTER you burn the DVD if you look in the DVD...
anyway, mpeg 2, mpeg 4, all that highly compressed stuff ( as you said ) is highly compressed to FIT onto the media ( DVD ) or whatever....but it plays good and it looks good...and has NOTHING to do with anything except squishing stuff down to fit the media and looking ( viewing ) GOOD. the best movie you ever saw on DVD is mpeg 2 ..... turned into vob in the making of the DVD by the software that makes the DVD.
all these things are different animals ...what you edit , what you deliver, etc ....

Understanding Image Sizes and Quality

I'm new to the printing and dimension specifications in Lightroom. If I use 250ppi and 2000x2500 but then change that to be able to print a larger image (300ppi 3000x4200 - 10x14x print, for example), what exactly happens to the image when I increases pixels and ppi? Does it improve/degrade the quality?

Great advice from dj, a few further points from my own experience:
In the Print module, changing the Print Resolution setting simply informs LR to resample the image before it is sent to the printer driver (if the default is different to the current configuration). This has no effect whatsoever on your image.
In the Library module, Exporting the image is per advice from dj
In the Develop module, cropping the image results in less pixels (when exported)
Elsewhere in LR, I am not aware of any method of resampling an image to increase pixels (interpolation). I have seen this in Photoshop (Image > Resize) but not LR.
I think the confusion comes from pixels and ppi. Pixels represents the actual ‘stuff’ in the image, this is not normally modified in LR per advice above. Ppi simply refers to how these pixels are distributed when viewed/printed. If you make the assumption that 72ppi is good enough for screen viewing then a 3000x3000 pixel image would be good for 3000/72 = 41 inches on screen. Assuming 240ppi is good for printing then the same image would be good for 3000/240 = 12.5 inches.
So ppi ends up being an indicator of view/print quality and nothing whatsoever to do with image quality.
To answer your questions specifically:
What exactly happens to the image when I increases pixels and ppi?
Increasing pixels resamples the image by interpolating adjacent pixels. Not something LR can do as far as I am aware. No additional ‘stuff’ is introduced, therefore no additional image quality.
Increasing ppi would distribute more ‘stuff’ in a viewed/printed image, thereby increasing the perception of quality.
Does it improve/degrade the quality?
Neither increasing pixels (in, say, Photoshop) nor PPI will increase the image quality. PPI would effect the perception of view/print quality per above.
NB I should also point out that your monitor resolution would also impact the screen view perception of quality.

SWF Size and Quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for