Why is the saved JPG file much bigger than the original JPG file??

I used Image Processor in Bridge CS5 to open a jpeg, apply sharpening action and save as a jpeg. The bit size, color space and pixel dimensions are identical. However, when I save at Quality 12 I get a Jpeg file that is nearly DOUBLE the size of the original jpeg Only if I drop it to Quality 10 do I get a file that approximates, but doesn't equal, the original jpeg.
1) Isn't 12 the same as saying 100% and as such the file size should be the about the same?
2) why would it increase so much? Example about 6 mb to about 12mb???
Does this sound right? I am sure I am doing the steps and setting the parameters correctly. The action simply applies unsharp mask:
I can set the quality to 10 and get an approximate equivalent file size...but I want the higher quality of a 100%/12 setting.
WHAT AM I MISSING???
Thanks - Kevin

WHAT AM I MISSING???
The simple fact that JPEG is always a fully re-compressing format. Your newly created files bear no relationship to the original ones - no binary data structures are retained; the compression algorithm is always applied fresh upon the fully decoded original image and if you use different settings, the result is different. Moreover, since the initial compression artifacts become "valid pixels" once decoded, the successive compression has no way of knowing that they actually are "bad pixels" and those fine disturbances agfain result in different compression patterns. That is, after alll, why consecutive saves to JPEG will always degrade quality even at the best settings...
Mylenium

Similar Messages

Why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

Please read this post then provide some details. What printer model? What operating system? What program are you printing from?
Some programs such as Photoshop give the option to print to CMYK or sRGB color spaces. Even though the printer uses CMYK inks the driver is expecting sRGB data. If CMYK is selected the prints will be much too dark.
Another thing to check is the media type. If you are printing on plain paper and have seelcted Photo paper the prints have too much ink.
Bob Headrick, HP Expert
I am not an employee of HP, I am a volunteer posting here on my own time.
If your problem is solved please click the "Accept as Solution" button ------------V
If my answer was helpful please click the "Thumbs Up" to say "Thank You"--V

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that make it worth buying?

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that I'm currently using and worth the money to buy it? Is it more or less confusing to operate?

OS X 10.7-18.0+ will NOT run any current PPC based programs your running.
http://roaringapps.com/apps:table
If you have a MacPro like your signature says (the tower, not the laptop) then it's not going to have much of a performance loss as say the MacBook Pro's will.
Older, less powerful Mac's have performance losses with the newer OS X Lions, it might be best to stick with 10.6.8 on a older machine until it drops, then spend the money on all new software on a newer machine instead.
One guy was here today and had a 2007 Intel Core 2 Duo and it was struggling to run OS X Mountain Lion, Chrome and Photoshop.
It just didn't have the hardware horsepower for all that bloatware.
My advice if it's not a top end iMac or MacPro, then 2010 is the cut-off point, those 2010 machines and earlier are likely better off on 10.6.8 max.
It all depends upon one's perception of performance really.

File sizes saved in MAC much bigger than saved in PC-is there a fix?

HI everyone -
I searched and couldn't find an answer for this specific issue so Im hoping I can be pointed in the right direction. Appreciate any help with this issue.
About a month ago got a MAC (I upgraded everything and have 12GB RAM so I know it's not the machine). Prior to this was using PC Win 7 ultimate - same deal-AMD Phenom quad core, 8GB RAM (I'm only telling you this because it said to say this when you post-I'm not trying to be a dork)
Here's my issue - I'm using CS5 on both the MAC and the PC. I do layered TIFF files that I eventually save to JPEG. I noticed that when Im saving these files from TiFF to JPEG on the MAC they are bigger than when I do the very same thing-same settings, etc in the PC.
Here is what Im doing - I have my TIFF file open, I flatten it, File - Save As - JPEG. I took the same exact file and put it on both machines to see exactly what the difference was and here is what I got when I chose quality of 8 under Image Options:
On the MAC the file size is 264.2K
On the PC the file size is 137.0K
WHY?? How can I make it stop? I have to have these files under a certain amount when I upload them and my MAC is my main computer so I have to find a fix.
Can anyone possibly help with this?
Thank you in advance!
Susan
edited to add that I am using MAC OSX 10.6.7.

Thank you Marian!~ When I unchecked the boxes under prefs - file handling that say ICON and WINDOWS THUMBNAIL, it changed it all for me in a good way
Now my file sizes are the opposite!
MAC (quality at 8) = 255KB
PC (quality at 8) = 261KB
You're awesome- thank you SOOO much. That was driving me crazy!

Why is the sparse bundle so much smaller than the backed up computer...can I be confident all files are backed up?

Hey gang,
iphoto folder became big so I have moved it to an external drive. I made sure the external disk is not excluded from timemachine backup in tm preferences. Backup seemed to take forever (it actually said "preparing for backup" the whole time with a spinning progress bar) ie 24 hours and still the same pogress bar.
i stopped the process as i had no confidence anything was actually happening
When i open up time machine, an earlier version of my imac is there, but the external drive is kind of greyed and i cannot access it.
When I check the sparse bundle size, it is under 200 gb, when my imac is around 600 gb, 900 with the external drive.
Why is the sparse bundle so small relative to the imac? are there hidden data files outside of the sparse bundle? when checking the preferences, it states total included is 921 gb...yet that is not reflected in the sparse bundle size.
I want to be sure iphoto is actually backed up before deleting it from my imac.
thanks anyone!

marten berkman wrote:
I am wondering whether the "processing" progress bar was due to the time capsule freeing up space for the additional data on the new external drive. When I cancelled it, available space on the tc incresed from 200 to 500 gb.
Yes, quite possibly. Especially on Leopard and Snow Leopard, that process on network backups is excruciatingly repetitive and slow. It's improved greatly in Lion and later, but still isn't exactly quick.
The backup complete, i checked the contents of the backed up version of the external drive, and the iphoto folder was the same size as original, so I have confidence that iphoto is backed up. Now I could delete the iphoto from the imac, freeing up tons of space.
Yay!
Still curious why the imac sparsebundle is only 160gb, while my macbook pro sparsebundle is about 700 gb...as though they are inversely named from the computers they back up.
Oh, I didn't realize you had two Macs backing-up to the TC. Which one is the external HD connected to?
Unless you've specifically excluded things, after the initial backup, the sparse bundle should be nearly the size of the data it's backing-up (TM does exclude some things like system work files, most caches and logs, and trash, so the backups are a few GBs smaller). As you do more backups, of course, it will grow.
So please clarify how much data is on each drive, Mac, and sparse bundle.
Also, the 2tb time capsule has 258 gb of 1.8 tb available....am I to suppose that there is hidden backup data not in the sparse bundles?
Sparse bundles are odd critters. They don't automatically shrink when things are deleted from them. Instead, the vacated space is used for new files until it's full, then it begins to grow again. Time Machine will "compact" them when necessary, to reclaim the empty space, but doesn't take the time to do it unless it's out of room.
You can do that manually if you want, per the pink box in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #12.
Message was edited by: Pondini

Why is the Log Area size much smaller than the log volume

I have been following up on an Early Watch report that has been generated for our production SCM 5.0 system running liveCache 7.6.02 Build 14. The alert says "The LOG volumes size in your system is too small. Recommendation: Configure LOG Volumes to at least 2 GB". There are two interesting things about this.
1) I have spent the last couple of days reading all the OSS Notes, and MaxDB documentation I could find, and this does not seem to be documented as a recommendation anywhere. Does this seem like a realistic recommendation without taking into account the level of change actifity?
2) There is a single log volume allocated with size 2,097,160 KB. In production LC10 and DBMGUI report this to be correct size under volume details, but only list the total log area size as 1,706,328 (81% of the volume size). We have a non-production environment with exactly the same size log volume, but it reports that the log area size is 2,032,008 KB (97% of the volume). What leads to these different amounts of wasted space, and is there any way of getting the database to start using it?
Thanks,
Mark

Hi Natalia,
I did read 869267, several times. It does not answer my questions which is why I posted here.
DBMGUI version = 7.6.00.25
DBMCLI commands for PL1 (Production)
> xinstinfo PL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/PL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/PL1
> dbmcli -d PL1 -u control,control
dbmcli on PL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on PL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 1706328
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 104640
Used Size (%)                   = 6
Not Saved (KB)                  = 104640
Not Saved (%)                   = 6
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 5210
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2469115
Physical Writes                 = 15655616
Queue Size (KB)                 = 48000
Queue Overflows                 = 646
Group Commits                   = 98205
Waits for Logwriter             = 10957511
Max. Waits                      = 10
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on PL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   14
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/PL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0006
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0007            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0007
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0008            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0008
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0009            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0009
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0010            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0010
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0011            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0011
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0012            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0012
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 12
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    6000
> xinstinfo SL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/SL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/SL1
dbmcli on SL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on SL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 2032008
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 3824
Used Size (%)                   = 0
Not Saved (KB)                  = 3824
Not Saved (%)                   = 0
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 1256
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2178269
Physical Writes                 = 4969914
Queue Size (KB)                 = 16000
Queue Overflows                 = 21201
Group Commits                   = 643
Waits for Logwriter             = 751336
Max. Waits                      = 4
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on SL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   10
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/SL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata3/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata4/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0006
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 4
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    2000
Thanks for the explaination of the reserved space for the Log Queue pages. This does explain why there is the difference between the two. I think we probably have our log segment size too large. As you can see we do get occasional log queue overflows. Do you suggest we increase the size of our log IO queue higher, and allocate more log volume space to compensate?
select * from SYSINFO.LOGSTATISTICS (on PL1)
1706328;334176;19;334176;19;1879;20305192;64109066;7806480;182151514;12;48000
DBMGUI Log Area Usage
Total Size: 2048.01 MB
Free Log Area: 1330.38 MB
Used Log Area: 335.96 MB
Unsaved Log Area: 335.96
Log since Last Data Backup: 0.00 MB
Thanks,
Mark

TS3274 I only have a 16gig ipad. I have bought some music that I want to get rid of so that I can sync with my laptop but don't know how to delete stuff from the ipad. My library on the ipad is 4 gigs bigger than the ipad anyway.

I have a 16gig ipad. I want to get rid of quite a bit of stuff that I have purchased to create space because I can't sync with my itunes library on my laptop. I dont know how to delete from the ipad. Can anyone help please? Terry

Typically you can delete content on the iPad one of two ways - swipe across an item in list view to bring up a red delete button or tap and hold down on an icon to bring up an X to delete option.
Why dont you connect your iPad to your laptop and transfer the purchases and then select exactly what you want to sync to the iPad. You don't have to delete anything this way.
Transfer purchases.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1848

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

Saving as a PDF -How do you make the PDF not bigger than the original file?

I am running Mac OS X Panther.
I understand that Mac OS X creates a "Digital Master" PDF file, which is larger than a typical PDF file because the resolution of images in the file is not scaled down. The PDF file includes each font character used in the document.
Problem is this.
I actually want the PDF NOT to be bigger than the original document file.
Can anyone please help?
Thanks
J Slater

jslat,
It's probably most important to know exactly what you intend to do with the saved pdf file? Are you going to need to print the pdf etc.?
This Apple Knowledge Base article may help if you haven't already read it:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.4/en/mh1035.html
littleshoulders [:-)
edit: You have posted in the 10.3 Panther OS and earlier forum and you appear to be using 10.4 (Tiger) by your computer specs below your topic which may handle pdf's somewhat differently. In your post you mention Panther so I just wanted to clarify if need be.
Message was edited by: littleshoulders

HT1766 My itunes library is much bigger than what I have on my 64gb ipod touch, so I am on manual sync. I want to upgrade to Ios 5.1, and I have tried to use the backup ipod feature, but it only backed up a little bit of data, nowhere near 64gb. Will I lo

My itunes library is much bigger than the 64gb on my ipod touch, but I want to update the touch to ios5.1. I tried the ipod backuo funnction, but this only produced a small file, much smaller than 64gb. If I upgrade, will i lose all the music and books as currently constituted on the ipod touch?

The iPod backup that iTunes makes does not include synced media like apps and music.. See the following for what it contains.
iTunes: About iOS backups
- Transfer iTunes purchases:
iTunes Store: Transferring purchases from your iOS device or iPod to a computer
- Transfer other music by using a third-party program like one of those discussed here:
newer copy

Image bigger than the screen

i have a 4rd generation ipod touch and suddenly the image of desktop is bigger than the screen. i dont know how to solve this.

Double tap the screen with 3 fingers.
Stedman

External projection much darker than the source

I am using a mini displayport to vga adapter and the external image is much darker than the source running on my mbp. this is going into a mixer then out to a projector. I also have an old pre intel powerbook that is doing the same thing(into a mixer and out to a projector) with s-video , with no problems at all.
this is a recent problem with the mbp,6 months ago it worked fine.
could it be the new os? if so how do i get back to the one i need?

I am having the same problem with my brand new MacBook Pro connecting to a video projector with a Mini-display to VGA connector. Many of the pictures are darker
than they should be. In PowerPoint I had to go to those darker slides and lighten them up (brightness up and contrast down). Now they are tolerable, but they still look better on the Mac screen than the projected image. Have tried three different projectors and find the same result. Projected colors are quite a bit different also. Puzzeled in Pennsylvania

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.

Placed jpgs - pdf much bigger then jpgs filesize - why !?

Hi,
i can't understand what exactly indesign doing, hopefully someone got an idea..
thanks in advance..
I placed a few jpgs, which are overall about 1.4 mb. The final Pdf, which only includes these jpgs is much bigger, 3.3 mb. I tried different export settings (best quality, smallest filesize, played with image compression ..) but the pdfs filesize always was between 2.8 (bad quality..) and 3.9.
In another test i printed the jpgs directly in a pdf file with Adobe PDF Printer directly from Windows Photo Viewer. Filesize was a few percent smaller than the original jpgs, Quality was pretty the same.
Finaly i placed these Pdfs in indesign and export the whole document as Pdf -> 2.3 mb
whyy ?!

Exported PDF supports a large number of features not supported in distilled PDF and contains information beyond just the text and images you place on the page, like color management information as one example. Some older versions of ID also tend to export overly large PDF, but that has mostly been corrected in CS5 and later. You can try running the PDF Optimizer in Acrobat Pro to reduce size.

Why would an alias file be larger than the original file?

I have a simple document that is 106kb. When I create an alias to the file, the alias is 133kb. Why would the alias file be larger than the orginal file when the alias file is simply a redirect to the original file?

Francine has a good explanation here:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/10337543#10337543
Matt

Why is the saved JPG file much bigger than the original JPG file??

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for