Why is my iCloud camera roll backup much larger than my camera roll?

Hi,
I recently reached my iCloud backup limit and was looking for things to get rid of to improve this, after deleting a load of photos I had a bit more space, but checking the backup of my camera roll compared to the actual camera roll size on my iPhone the two are massively different - on the phone it says 4.8GB, whereas on the backup it says 7.8GB! Is there a reason for this? I have backed up since deleting the photos by the way, so that's not the issue.
Thanks in advance.

Never mind, I found another discussion with the answer, I just turned camera roll off in my backup and then backed up before turning it back on and backing up again - it seems the backup was keeping the old photos for some reason.

Similar Messages

  • Why is menu size so much larger than the files?

    I am somewhat perplexed - I'm making a single-layer dvd and have a simple single screen theme (no animation) - it has one drop zone. The movie has 28 chapters so there are five of them, but so far I've added only one montage of photos to each menu page - it's a "mobile" quality in media browser and ave only 10 - 20 MB, then one song. On average these movie clips are 1:00 to 2:00 min long and the music is cut to that length. So, all told, it's probably less than 110 MB in files - but when I look at the project properties, the menus are 3301 MB!!!
    The movie itself is only 1.1 GB so what is going on?
    It's preventing me from doing the project and I've got no idea why it's making the menu size so much larger than the file sizes?
    Can you please help me figure out what to do?
    Alexa

    The 2 min clips were natively 2 min - I had each one separate and actually converted to media browser in "mobile" size (b/c the drop zone was 4 x 6 in size in the theme). They were tiny - in most cases I was shortening the audio (e.g. the song was 4 minutes and I was setting the loop to only 1:30 b/c that's how long the video clip was on the menu).
    BUT, to resolve the question (I always like to post the answer) - I ended up duplicating the project to try to reimport the video. It was a fresh iDVD project and I happened to click on the project tree of screens - and, lo and behold, the ENTIRE menu was duplicated for some reason (and the movie, actually). I went back to the original and it was the same! I have no idea how that would happen do you? It only had one main menu screen - and then an entire duplicate menu - which I wouldn't even know how to access if I didn't see it in the project menu tree?
    The only think of is that at one point I added a title menu link to the scene selection - it gave me a warning that my menu was more than 12 minutes, did I want to fix or ignore and fix later - which confused me b/c it was under 12 min, then but I clicked ignore. Does that create an alternate title menu and send people back to something else?
    Anyway, I deleted the entire extra scene selection menus (5 of them) and it was back to under 4 GB.
    So, I was able to burn, but still wondering about creating the "title menu" link on scene selections? It drives me crazy that it doesn't automatically do that so I like to add "main menu" links.
    Thanks for your help!
    Alexa

  • Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?

    I was under the impression that original raw files were the biggest possible. I appear to be very wrong. Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?
    I'm beginning to think that saving them as psd is a bad idea.
    Yes, though I've heard all the arguments of keepng the original raw files (For ex. Did you throw away the negatives when you were using film) I se eno purpose in keeping them. Once I've made the initial adjustments--cropping, color correction etc. I don't feel a need to ever go back and never do. Most of my work is done in Photoshop and I like it that way--but suddenly finding myself with such huge files doesn't appeal to me at all--and other formats like tif...well never mind for now.

    Good point made c.pfaffenbichler however, my thinking is this--there is time spent on the raw file and then there is much more time spent on (usually a psd) the file once in Photoshop. For me to then go back to the orignal raw file, after having worked on it on PS would mean getting rid of all the work (larger amount of work, time wise and artistic wise) done on PS which seems pointless. Although the psd file does show your layers and stuff it only shows the end results of that layer. It does not show from where to where you pointed your brush, from what point to what point you changed the color or part of an image etc. etc.Anyhow I understand why most people keep their raw files, but this is the main reason why I do not. It would mean hours of work on an image you already worked on (and usually were satisfied with) to perhaps make some minor alteration. Also please note that though I was noce a pro photog, no I do it mostly for fun. Getting the exact red in my Coca Cola can has never been of importance. On the other hand, if there were a way of working on a raw file within Photoshop and keep it (save it as) a raw file equivalent, then I would absolutely do so.

  • Why are ACR PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD?

    Why are ACR > PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD? I posted this many years ago and never found an answer. Now that my drives fill up quicker, I thought I might chase this question a little bit further.
    Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.
    Why the difference? Is ACR and PSD actually using different compression strategies?
    thanks.
    Mac 10.8.5 / CC / ACR 8.4.1 - but this has been a consistent behavior over many years and versions, CS6 / CC.
    Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.

    Hi Jeff
    If it is RLE it's not as efficient as LZW:
    Saved ACR>PSD = 40.1MB  (sample image this AM)
    opened in PS and resaved as PSD = 30.8MB
    resaved as TIF without LZW = 40.1MB    (this adds to your thought that the ACR>PSD doesn't us any compression)
    resaved as TIF/LZW = 9.6MB
    Jeff Schewe wrote:
    I really think your priorities are a bit off. 10-20% is meaningless...you just need to get bigger....  and quit fussing over a few GB's here or there...
    ???   I hope that the Adobe engineers are fussing over 10-20% efficiencies.
    I'm within arms reach to a rack of 40TB of drives (doesn't include off-site drives), and all 2TB drives are being recycled to 4TB drives, as a result the rack is always growing. Actually the ACR>PSD files don't really make a difference in our long term storage, only for the nightly backups. But anyway, how you save, what you save etc. should all be part of the discussion.
    .... so in my case, throw in an excess MB here and there and all of a sudden you are talking TB's. Plus advantages in backup times, drive life, and energy use.
    Somebody added compression into the PS>PSD format, but it wasn't included in the ACR>PSD format, was it a decision or an oversight? If it's just a matter of making ACR compatible with PS when saving the same PSD format..... then why not?
    regards,
    j

  • My hard drive is clogging up automatically. The personal folder is now 921 GB which is much larger than the sum of the subfolders. I cannot see what's causing this or prevent this from happening. Anyone?

    My hard drive on my Imac keeps clogging up automatically. The personal folder is now 925 GB which is much larger than the sum of the underlying subfolders. I cannot see what"s causing this. Anyone?

    You may try one of these utilities to spotlight exactly where the hard drive usage has gone crazy.
          DaisyDisk- http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/daisydisk/id411643860?mt=12
         DiskFalcon   - http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-falcon/id421781596?mt=12
    Items to check manually:
         Duplicate iTune libraries, or music files that are in itune folder AND loose on the harddrive
         Download folder that hasn't been emptied
         Backup software location

  • Email account folder in /user/library/mail is much larger than full mailbox archive for the same account

    Hi,
    I recently changed jobs and want to archive all email (with attachments in place) for the associated work email account.  I also plan to remove the old work email account (IMAP) from the list of active mailboxes in Apple Mail.  I don't want Spotlight searches for personal or current work email cluttered with results from my old job.
    I have created an archive of the old work account by doing Mailbox Archive for all of the IMAP folders for that account.  The entire archive is 1.7GB in size.
    Before I delete the old account from my Mail preferences, I want to make sure that I have really exported everything.  So I've compared the size of the new archive folder with that of the mailbox folder in users/.../Library/Mail for that same account.  That latter is 8.7GB in size.  Why the enormous difference?
    Can the difference be attributed to lack of compression and indices (which would be rebuilt if I import the archive) for spotlight searches?  Am I missing something in the archive that I created?
    I've created a zip of the system folder.  Can I easily restore this at a latter time if I delete the email account from my Mail preferences?
    Is there a better way to achieve my objective?
    Mitoids

    I did find a "Recovered Messages" by looking in the the Mail client under "On My Mac" (I don't normally use that feature).  One message with an accicental 99MB attachment that I never sent, was recovered ~60times, consuming 5.7GB. 
    I deleted all of those, but the size ~/Library/Mail/xxxaccount folder did not change much.  It is still much larger than the Archive I created.  BTW, this is an IMAP account that was syncing with corporate GMail.

  • Database much larger than expected when using secondary databases

    Hi Guys,
    When I load data into my database it is much larger than I expect it to be when I turn on secondary indexes. I am using the Base API.
    I am persisting (using TupleBindings) the following data type:
    A Key of size ~ *80 Bytes*
    A Value consisting of 4 longs ~ 4*8= *32 Bytes*
    I am persisting ~ *280k* of such records
    I therefore expect ballpark 280k * (80+32) Bytes ~ *31M* of data to be persisted. I actually see ~ *40M* - which is fine.
    Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ *35M*
    This would bring the total amount of data to (40M + 35M) ~ *75M*
    (although I would expect less given that many of the secondary keys are duplicates)
    What I am seeing however is *153M*
    Given that no other data is persisted that could account for this, is this what you would expect to see?
    Is there any way to account for the extra unexpected 75M of data?
    Thanks,
    Joel
    Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59
    Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59

    Hi Joel,
    Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ 35MA secondary index consists of a regular JE database containing key-value pairs, where the key of the pair is the secondary key and the value of the pair is the primary key. Your primary key is 80 bytes, so this would be 4 * (4 + 80) * 280k Bytes -> ~ 91M.
    The remaining space is taken by per-record overhead for every primary and secondary record, plus the index of keys itself. There are (280k * 5) records total. Duplicates do not take less space.
    I assume this is an insert-only test, and therefore the log should contain little obsolete data. To be sure, please run the DbSpace utility.
    Does this answer your question?
    --mark                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

  • ICloud backups much smaller than usual

         I've had an iphone of every generation since the 4. I've been using icloud backups ever since the option was available and the cloud went online. All phones have always been 32gig models. Every iPhone backup over icloud since I can remember has taken up  between 3.6 and the allowable free 5 gigs, depending on how full I keep my texts and how often I delete them. Cam roll is not included in backups. I've had to use restore from icloud many times and always with success, including what I'm getting at: A few weeks ago, I had my 5s replaced on a warranty issue, and the backup resored over wifi at the apple store without issue. It was much faster than it used to be, but continued throughout the day with me being able to use the phone. The apple tech who replaced my phone said the restoration process if much faster now and everything was normal. When I got home, I synced all my music and pics from itunes on my imac as usual after a backup restore, then deleted my old icloud backup and set my new phone to backup auto overnight as usual.
         Well... all this backstory just to say that my new backup file is only 1.2 gigs. It was originally 800 megs but has grown from text convos. Why is it so small? I haven't changed anything in settings. Is this normal and are everyones iphone data backups smaller now because they changed their way or backing up the data or compressing it a different way? I'm certainly not complaining.. I love it.. but i am concerned that all my usual data is not being backed up.
    Thanks for any input I receive and sorry for the long winded explanation.

    See what gets backup using iCloud/iTunes:
    Backup
    iTunes http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4946
    iCloud http://support.apple.com/kb/PH2584

  • Why won't icloud merge or backup all my contacts?

    Why won't icloud copy all my contacts in Outlook?  Some are backed up and merged some aren't!

    I had similar problem.  This worked for me, hope it helps:
    In Mail
    Open Preferences>Accounts
    Select Advanced tab for the iCloud account
    Set Authentication to 'Apple Token'
    The Password field on the Account Info tab should now have disappeared.
    Mail no longer asks for password every time it launches.
    (now i just have to solve why mail launches an upgrade dialogue every single time it opens and then proceeds to try and re-download about 25,000 emails...)
    Why the Authentication method suddenly switched when I upgraded ML to Mav who knows, but it seems incredible that no-one at Apple came across this, it's one of their prime apps.
    In fact, since upgrading to Mav I've had numerous system wide problems with my iCloud accounts not connecting properly or stably - what on earth are the thousands of engineers at Apple doing?

  • HT204247 Why is my iPhone Backup WAY larger than estimated? Pics incl.

    Thank you for reading!
    I have an iPhone 5S 16 GB running ios 8.1.3. My iPhone is being backed up to iCloud. Currently the backup is estimated at nearly 600 MB. I am utilizing iCloud photostream. I do not have photos saved locally. The largest app under the estimate (when clicking "manage more storage" is only 12 mB.
    Why is the backup SO large?!

    You are welcome for reading. 600 MB backup is not large, by all means. I have no imessages, about 60 photos and my backup is over 1 Gig. You just don't realize what happens with files. If you were to create smallest file possible by using notepad on your computer and typing one letter, it would still have more then 20 kbytes. We are talking apps that require bigger files for even smallest stuff. So you can pursue that avenue - why or why or just be happy that yet you don't have to pay for storage over 5 gigs. Your poison.

  • Why are colors in Illustrator 6 so much darker than in Illustrator 4?

    I recently switched from Illustrator CS4 to CS6. The colors in 6 are much darker than in 4, and are not accurate to actual Pantone colors (they were very close to being accurate in 4). Has anyone experienced this, and does anyone know what to do about this?

    Your color management settings may have changed since you said all colors are darker. check your color management settings match between CS6 & CS4.
    Edit >> Color Settings
    In regards to the difference between CS6 and CS5 or before the color books are now LAB not CMYK, so that means the values are different. A bad thing for print if you change the color mode to CMYK, the colors will be far off what the PMS book says, and you will have to manually fix this e color to match what CS4 uses.
    CS5 the book colors were in CMYK so when you converted to CMYK the colors were a close match for printing.
    In CS6 the color books switched to LAB which may be more accurate for RGB and digital workflows, but not Print CMYK.
    In CS6 converting to CMYK, introduces scum dot (small value which serves little purpose and introduces screening) in cyan and black you would not desire, and in for example flexible packing scum dot would increase the visibility of a moire pattern. For printing never use the CMYK conversion in CS6.
    Depending which PMS book you use the CMYK values change.
    485 is 95m 100y in the Latest Color Bridge Book, so many brands prior to the bridge book reject that cmyk match for brand consistency with existing printing.
    485 is 95m 100y in the solid process book.  Many brands stick to this especially if they are matching what their brand was prior to the color bridge.

  • Image button imports much larger than actual size

    I have a lot of custom image buttons in my Captivate project. I am now trying to scale them down in size, to reduce overall file size of my project. Some of my custom png images show up as 100 px in Photoshop, then when I import them into Captivate, they stay the same. However others, that show as 100px in photoshop, are importing in at 400px! Any ideas why this would happen. The original set was 400px. But I have overwritten the files with smaller ones in the gallery and re-inserted them - but still no luck.  Thanks.

    Hi
    i am posting this again due to lack of response. Its urgent. so i will really be thankful to anyone who can help.
    My application prints out cd labels. As i checked the width of a cd label is 12.5 cm which is 472 pixels. Now when i set component size to 472 pixel and print just that component, the out put seems to be much larger. like it covers almost 90% width of a A4 page. My code is like this:
    I want to print LabelContainer
    private function print():void
         printjob = null;
         printjob = new FlexPrintJob();
         LabelContainer.printDataGrid.selectedIndex = -1;
         try{
              if(printjob.start()){
                   datamodel.showTitles = false;
                   printjob.addObject(LabelContainer,FlexPrintJobScaleType.NONE);
                   printjob.send();
                   datamodel.showTitles = true;
         }catch(e:Error){
              Alert.show(e.message);
    can some one please help me. I really dont understand this.

  • Help with Photoshop CS2 files MUCH larger than normal, possibly not compessing layer masks

    Has anyone else come across a problem where Photoshop files grow in size much faster than expected, especially when adding layer masks?
    Normally when you add a layer mask the file size grow a small amount if the layer mask is mostly all white or mostly all black. In this case it's like the file size is growing exponentially, almost as if the layer mask isn't being compressed at all.
    The file in question although large, is similar dimensions, resolution, and number of layers as other projects that have been worked on and all the usual thing have been checked like resolution, colour mode, bit depth and the image has also been cropped so there's nothing outside of the page.
    The file has been checked on 2 different macs and exhibits the same behaviour and Photoshop preferences have been deleted and re-created and we've tried copying the file by dragging layers to a new document of the same dimensions with no success.
    The only things we're certain of is that file size grows dramatically when adding layer masks in particular and layers in general.
    The file was created by someone else, if that might be a factor, though the file has been "saved as.." with no improvement.
    Any ideas?
    TIA
    Tom
    The only

    Maybe it has something to do with "Maximize Compatibility". If that's checked when you save, it might add a lot of weight to your file, even with just a simple layer mask. Don't know, haven't done any testing, just a thought.
    Edit: Just did a quick test:
    1. flat image saved as PSD = 5.2 MB
    2. same image converted to a layer with simple layer mask, saved as PSD = 5.8 MB
    3. same layer mask image saved WITH "maximize compatibility" = 10.7 MB
    So adding "maximize compatibility" nearly doubled this test file. Could be it?

  • Why is my Time Machine backup so much larger than the files being backed up?

    Mac Mini Server 10.7.1 on a 2011 Mac Mini Server
    Here are the drives on my system:
    Here are the items excluded from backup:
    Note that Server HD and Archive are the only non-excluded disks and the estimated backup size is 563.2 GB (this corresponds with the actual usage on those drives.
    However, when I run time machine, it keeps going until by 2TB backup drive is nearly full! And that's with only a single backup instance and nothing else on the drive:
    What's going on here??? If I don't backup the other external drive, the backup size doesn't blow up like this.

    Just to clarify, the reason why Time Machine backups are generally small is that TM makes extensive use of hard links.  symbolic links are small files that point to a different file system entry, while hard links point directly to the original file data on disk (hard links are  unintuitive - they are like having multiple doors into a room, except that you can place the doors anywhere you like and still get to the room).  So even though there may be dozens of backups of a disk, most of the backed-up items will only have one data source on disk, with only items that have changed needing new representations.
    I suspect that when you try to backup a time machine backup, it is converting the hard links into separate on-disk representations - basically taking every pointer to a given piece of on-disk data and creating a new file from it. I'm not sure if that would be a linear or geometric size increase (it sounds like the latter), but either way it's going to get ugly fairly fast.

  • PDF Files from InDesign much larger than Quark- Distiller, why?

    We've recently switched our publishing workflow for one of our pubs from Quark to InDesign, and are having issues with PDFs being really large. Previously, the pub would be PS'd out of QXP6.52 and then ran through our Distiller service at Press Ready quality settings. The resulting PDF files were 4-6mb (This is only a 2-page pub).
    Now, moving to InDesign, we PDF directly from InDesign (or I've also tried PSing and then Distilling), and using Press Ready Quality settings still -- the resultant PDF files are 15-16mb. Can anyone theorize as to what would create such a large difference between the two?
    This is using a few issues of the pub - not just one instance, as well.
    Thanks

    [email protected] wrote:
    7. Yes, the file and links are using transparency.
    This is probably the answer.
    Recreate the page in InDesign with no transparency (as a test). This means all links are tiff or eps. No use of opacity or blend modes. No drop shadows.
    This is how it would have been in Quark 6, which did not support transparency (the newer kind anyway)
    Note: if you had overlying drop shadows in Quark 6 they would have had to have been bitmap tiffs.
    I also should mention: transparency is a good thing. There may be a way to get the file size down without removing transparency. Possibly you could use Acrobat to do this.
    Also note I posted a couple of updates on my previous post, they may or may not be relevant.

Maybe you are looking for