Truly weird behavior - file size: why

I used Adobe Acrobat to generate a PDF file from a MS Word document. The file was 283 kB. I opened the PDF, deleted one page, then inserted a single page PDF file (size 33 kB). When this was done, the PDF file size was 308 kB. Fine.
Then, I again opened the PDF file and added a text box to the page I had inserted. The text box contents are "page 13 of 17" and I used the same font that was used in the rest of the document. I also hid the outline of the box. When I saved the file, it's size had ballooned to 1,635 kB.
This, quite frankly, is absurb. 1.3 MB for 15 characters? What's going on? More importantly, can the file be slimmed back down?

You can use the pdf optimizer slim down the file. When you added the text box, Acrobat may have needed to re-embed the font even if it was previously used. I cannot explain why it increased so much, but the pdf optimizer is the way to put the file on a diet.

Similar Messages

Lightroom export file size: why so small? How can I maximize image quality?

My image file sizes are much smaller after editing and exporting through Lightroom. Is it impossible to maintain original file size to preserve image quality? Will this smaller file size have negative impact on prints? Any help is appreciated!

Per Berntsen wrote:
My view on this is somewhat different ...
Jpgs should never be edited, except as a last resort. And it defeats the purpose of working with raw files if you export a jpg, and then edit it.
Agreed. Unfortunately there are many cameras that only output JPEG format files. The camera file (or any other original JPEG file) is your "raw" unedited file inside LR. If you need to send the file to someone else for further editing who doesn't have LR then Exporting with 100% Quality setting might make sense. I say "might" because it's still possible to get very good results using lower Quality setting JPEGs if you only re-save the file one (1) time after further editing. I agree that 16 bit, ProPhoto RGB, TIFF Export files are best for "critical" work and when using 'Edit in Photoshop' from LR.
I suggest taking a look at the JPEG compression image tests on Jeffrey Friedl's Blog. It's a wealth of information! LR's Quality settings range from 0% to 100% or 100 Quality levels. In reality there are only 13 Quality levels, which are the same as in PS.
JPEG QUALITY SETTINGS
Photoshop
Description
Lightroom
0
Low
0-7%
1
Low
8-15%
2
Low
16-23%
3
Low
24-30%
4
Low
31-38%
5
Med
39-46%
6
Med
47-53%
7
Med
54-61%
8
High
62-69%
9
High
70-76%
10
Max
77-84%
11
Max
85-92%
12
Max
93-100%
I use LR JPEG Quality settings of 77-84% for outside printing and LR 62-69% for web posting. I've yet to see any compression artifacts using these settings and I am a pixel-peeper!
Per Berntsen wrote:
If someone gives me a jpg to edit, I always save it as a tiff and convert to 16-bit, to minimize furhter deterioration. I realize that this will not be true 16-bit - no information is added to the image - but my impression is that it will withstand heavy editing better, and not end up with a comb-like histogram.
Why not simply Import the JPEG file into LR and do all your editing non-destructively? There's no need to convert the JPEG file to TIFF unless you need to use LR 'Edit in PS.' Lightroom uses a16 bit/color, ProPhoto RGB, Linear Gamma workspace for all images even when editing sRGB JPEG files.

Quicktime doubles file size - Why?

In Quicktime Pro I open up a dv video file that is one hour, 12 GB. I select Save As and it tells me that to save the file as an .mov will take 24 GB.
Q1: Why is this the case?
Q2: My properties window lists a video track, a sound track, and a track that appears to be the original DV file. Why the redundancy?
Q3: Can I reduce the file size without exporting or using the Save as Reference Movie option?

As a test, I chose SAVE AS on the original 25gb videot, the SAVE AS window told me that the new SAVE AS file would be 50gb!! I'm new to all this, so I have no idea what I'm doing wrong!
To some extent it is a numbers game. In an MOV file the DV audio and DV video are counted separately and added together in both the "Inspector" window and the Finder "Info" window. In the DV file container the "Inspector" window still doubles the file size but the Finder "Info" window only counts a single DV stream. If it Bothers you, either do your trimming in MPEG Streamclip (free) or, if you've already saved some files in MOV containers, then open them in MPEG Streamclip and use the "Save As..." option to re-save them but select the "DV" file container this time. When done, compare the DV file with the MOV file using the Finder "Info" window.

Delete pages doesn't reduce file size, why?

Using Adobe 6.0 on Windows XP. Have 30k file and want to reduce size without doing as print file. 82 pages long. Tried copying and deleting pages 42 thru 82 but file stays same size. Why doesn't it reduce to half the size?

Basically Save As is supposed to remove everything that is deleted and or replaced. Sounds like it is not doing it for you for some reason. The Save retains the old stuff in case you change your mind -- no matter that nobody I know can get the info back anyway. This difference is apparently a hold over from copying how MS did it in OFFICE.
If you can not use Reduce File Size, then try the PDF Optimizer that has more options. You might want to concentrate on the image resolution and possibly color depth from what you are describing. I last ditch effort (not nec. recommended) is to print the PDF to a new one that uses a lower graphic resolution.

Converting PPT to Captivate File Size - why is is increasing?

I have Captivate 7 - 64 bit. I am trying to convert several .pptx presentations. Each presentation is around 60 MB. Strangely, though, when I convert them, they are increasing in size to 320 MB or thereabouts. A few months back we did this same thing with a 70 mb presentation and it only increased by 20 MB. Any ideas on why this would be or how to keep it smaller? I still have to input audio and that is going to make this file huge!
Thanks in advance,
Arthur

Hi there
Are you using the option for "High Fidelity"? I suppose that might account for it. Additionally, what about animations? If you have animations, perhaps that also accounts for it.
If you really want to ensure the file size is as small as possible, you might consider using what I call "The Camtasia Approach" for PowerPoint. You essentially launch the PowerPoint in presentation mode, then record it using Captivate. Just as you might record another application.
Cheers... Rick

The amount of memory used for data is a lot larger than the saved file size why is this and can I get the memory usage down without splitting up the file?

I end up having to take a lot of high sample rate data for relativily long periods of time. When I save the data it is usually over 100 MB. When I load the data for post-processing though the amount of memory used is excessively higher than the file size. This causes my computer to crash because 1.5 GB is not enough. Is there a way to stop this from happening withoput splitting up the file into smaller files.

LabVIEW can efficiently handle large files, far beyond 100Mb, provided that care is taken in the coding of the loading/processing routines. Here are several suggestions:
1) Check out the resources National Instruments has put together (NI Developer Zone > Development Library > Measurement and Automation Software > LabVIEW > Development System > Optimizing Applications > Managing Memory), specifically the article entitled "Managing Large Data Sets in LabVIEW".
2) Load and process the data in chunks if possible.
3) Avoid sending the data to front panel indicators, using local/global variables for data storage, or changing data types unless absolutely necessary.
4) If using LabVIEW 7.1, use the "show buffer" tool to determine when LabVIEW is creating extra
copies of data in memory.

Finder ALWAYS has to recalculate Applications file sizes - WHY?

I must be missing something simple here. Every time I open the Applications folder the Finder seems to take 2-3 minutes to re-calculate the file size of every app. I don't usually care because they don't usually change.
Any ideas on how I can stop this?
Chet

Any ideas on how I can stop this?
When in List View, press Command + J to open the Finder's List view preferences, and under Show Columns, deselect Size.
This will remove that column and now will display quicker without having to gather that information.

Image dimensions and file size, why the change?

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

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

Exported file sizes - why so big

I'm not sure if this question is truly answerable or not.
As some of you may have noticed I was looking into maybe changing over to Lightroom, well after some in-depth analysis I've all but decided to stick with Aperture. The things it does very well cannot compare to what LR has to offer. Organizational tools, like smart albums and projects.
Anyways in comparing the two apps I noticed that the jpg exports of aperture were quite a lot larger then LR. for instance at best quality 1600x1200 a jpg in aperture is typically 1.5meg and LR is 1.1. Not a huge difference.
Now take tiff 16bit full resolution. 35meg for aperture 10 for LR.
Any idea why things appear to be so large for aperture.
Quality of the images is near identical at least as far as I can tell. I went so far as zoomed into both images 200% and compared them in photoshop.
Mike

closed

Why is file size of exported clip so large?

I have a movie clip in MPEG-4 format, 3 minutes in duration, 720x400. I ripped it (using Handbrake) from a DVD I own. Let's call this clip Clip A. I wanted it to be smaller, so I used Quicktime Pro 6.5.2 to export it. Let's call the exported clip Clip AE (E for exported). Clip AE has these properties:
Compression: Sorenson Video 3
Quality: High
Frame rate: 15
Width x Height: 310 x 200
Sound format: QDesign Music 2
Sample rate: 22,050 kHz
Channels: Mono
File Size: 5.5 MB
Great. That's just what I wanted. Now I go to a second movie clip I have in MPEG-4 format. This Clip B is only 90 seconds in duration, 720x400. I export it to Clip BE. Clip BE has these properties:
Compression: Sorenson Video 3
Quality: High
Frame rate: 15
Width x Height: 310 x 200
Sound format: QDesign Music 2
Sample rate: 22,050 kHz
Channels: Mono
FILE SIZE: 25.8 MB
In both exports I set the Key Frame Rate and Data Rate to automatic. So, everything is the same except Clip BE, which is half as long in duration as Clip AE, is 5 times larger in file size.
I'm no expert at using QT Pro, but this result just does not make sense to me. Why is the second exported clip 5 times larger than the first one. I wanted to email both of them to my wife at work as a little surprise, but the second one is way too big for my email account. How can I get the file size of that second clip down to the size of the first one? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
iMac G5, iBook (dual USB) G3 Mac OS X (10.3.9)

The second clip probably has more detail or motion than the first.
Open Clip AE and choose "Get Info." Note the data rate of the video.
Now export clip B again, but instead of setting the data rate to automatic, set it to the same number as Clip AE's data rate.
You will lose video quality, but the file should come out smaller.

Why can I only "Save as Other... Reduce File Size" a single time for an Adobe X file?

We are struggling with our form editing in that anytime we make a change and save the file size is doubled. As a work around we started using the ...Reduce File Size save as. However, we can only use that once per file. Some of our forms contain several hundred fields that are edited, with the behavior as is we cannot save our work as we go.
Reproduction Steps...
1. Open a file in Acrobat X and note it's file size.
2. Make any kind of change (our work is focued on View>Forms>Edit)
3. Go to File > Save as Other... > Reduce Size PDF
4. Set Version Compatability to 'Retain Existing' and Save
5. File size should be very close to the original
6. Open the new file
7. Rinse and repeat steps 2 and 3
8. Note that when you go to try to Save as the new edit, the Save As Reduce size is grayed out and no longer available for seslection.
Please help!!!!

Just do a standard Save As. The problem is that Save includes the old and new. Save As deletes the old. Also, if you distribute the form it is locked from editing as I understand it.

Why has my Adobe PCD cache.db file size started growing suddenly

I am running CS4 Design Premium on an iMac which had OS X 10.6.2 until the 29th and now has 10.6.3.
On 19th March my Adobe PCD cache.db file size was just over 100Mb. Since then it has grown steadily until it is now over 19Gb in size.
Can anyone explain to me why it should suddenly have started growing please? During this time I have really only run Acrobat Pro; however I have had a lot of browser (Safari and FF) hangs/crashes due to Flash plugin issues.
I understand the cache.db also holds licence information so is it safe to delete this file? If so will I need to reenter my license information?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Phill

I have the same problem.
My pcd.db file is now 56 GB
What is going on !?!?!?
Sikem

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with CS3 and CS6 and get the same problem. Doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with both CS3 and CS6 on 10.8.2 and get the same problem. This doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

this one is actually a really rare symptom of a flaky connection to the ipod on a Windows PC. there's more going on in terms of hardware on nanos and 5th gens than in the earlier models ... so if the connection is flaky to precisely the right/wrong degree, itunes will see the ipod, but misidentify it as an earlier version of ipod.
tracking down the cause of the flakiness can be tricky ... as you already know ...
just checking. have you tried connecting with a different (known-good) USB cable? does that seem to have any impact on the rate of occurence of the problem?

Media Encoder CS4 output file size varies--why??

I was batch encoding several files yesterday, and one of the files failed. Adobe Media Encoder provided no details, other than when I hover over the yellow exclamation point error icon, it says: "Error compiling movie. Unknown error." Very insightful.
Today I reprocessed the file same file with the same preset [FLV - Same As Source (Flash 7 and Higher)] and it worked fine. To check for instability on my machine, I actually ran the same job 10 times, and each job succeeded. But the curious thing is, even though I was using the same input file and output preset, I see that the output files vary in size. The output sizes are:
30,739,977 bytes
30,750,834 bytes
30,750,504bytes
30,750,654bytes
30,739,928bytes
30,740,044bytes
30,750,615bytes
30,740,001bytes
30,739,979bytes
30,750,637bytes
Now I understand that this variation is less than 10kB on a 30MB file, so it's prety small. But I am curious as to why the file size would vary in this way.
Any ideas?

I would guess that you are overclocking your cpu and the cooler is not able to make the cpu cool enough and some calculations can go wrong. There are programs that put the cpu in a high load and check if it's running properly as expected. Give them a try.

Why are the file sizes of exported jpegs so small?

I shoot raw, studio portraits mostly. I import to Lightroom 5 as DNG and then edit. Upon exporting as jpegs, the file sizes end up way too small, some of the cropped and/or black & white conversions as small as 560 KB, even with slider to 100%. Un-cropped color photos are ending up from 1.5 to 3MB. What am I doing wrong?

Jim,
Thank you for your response. I think some of the difficulties in this thread are that there have been more than one person reporting issues, which may or may not be exactly the same or different from the initial one reported by the original poster. Then, anyone else commenting can easily intermix bits and pieces from any or all of the other posters interrelated issues. Also, I should have added to my last response in clarification what I meant about the overall dimensions. I was referring specifically to inches, not file size, not resolution.
My very first post was a thank you to Rusty's post for his comment about how he had noticed his Resolution setting had been changed from ppi to ppcm. I didn't say anything about printing. In fact, I never even stated what my issue was. I was merely thanking him for sharing information. So, for anyone to tell me that I didn't know what my issue is, that I didn't understand was quite laughable to me. And then the other two posters were almost equally ridiculous, who said that since they didn't experience the same conditions as myself and another person, it couldn't be a programming error.
Trust me, I understand explicitly about resolution, image size, dimensions, file size and how they are all interrelated. Resolution is essentially the density of pixels. (And I'm still used to dpi vs ppi, that's how long I've been working with the concept.) I often help other people understand in whichever mode is most comfortable for them to grasp the knowledge of how to know what size image they need/want to capture and print depending on the types of measurements shown on their equipment used and by whomever they might be working with for finish work.
I have a set process, I have set image sizes, I have an action recorded in Photoshop to shrink my images to 24" x 36" and save them in the proper folder with the proper name and another to shrink them to 8" x 12" and place them in the proper folder with the proper name. I am meticulous, so when the first image imported into Photoshop and it was 18.898" x 28.346", un-cropped, I couldn't figure it out. The file size was still just as large, the resolution was still 72, I hadn't changed any settings in Lightroom or Photoshop, the ONLY thing I had done was install an update. It didn't make sense to me that with the pixel dimensions still being the normal size, all of the sudden the inch dimensions were smaller. And I did need to be able to have the capability for a larger print size if/when I do want to print.
I hope that I'm being clear now. I really was just trying to post a thank you initially. I hadn't expected all of this excess.
I apologize for the troll statement. It wasn't meant for you directly, it was more for the grouping of comments which in my opinion didn't seem to be useful for the discussion and were instead just baiting. I shouldn't have allowed my bad mood to permeate my own comment regardless. I am also sorry for any other statements I made which might have come across wrong. I was trying to be funny with my first comment about programmers, but it might not have come across that way. I hadn't expected the rude and unnecessary comment back which I received, and that's where the trollish comments came from. That's why I only responded to that person once, despite the string of poking posts.

Truly weird behavior - file size: why

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for