Wrong file size in Encore?

Hi,
can anyone help?
I encode a file into mpeg2-DVD fith file size approx. 4GB. When I import this file into Encore CS4, the program shows that this file will NOT fit into DVD-5. It shows about 8GB file size. Why?
If I import the same file to Encore CS3, everything is OK. In both programs I have the same settings.
Any idea? THANKS!
Radovan

1-check to be sure you have not added anything to the ROM content section
2-does Encore say the file needs to be re-transcoded?
3-have you maybe added the file to the project twice?
4-related to #3, copy-paste a picture of your flowchart

Similar Messages

Wrong file size on the timeline

Whenever I import file to Premiere PRO CS3 it is in wrong size.For example,
1 hour of avi when come to timeline shows only 2 min.
Please can somebody help me,?
File properties,
File Path: E:\kostov\Untitled Clip 01.avi
Type: MainConcept DV Pro
File Size: 13.2 GB
Image Size: 720 x 576
Pixel Depth: 720
Frame Rate: 25.00
Source Audio Format: 48000 Hz - 16 bit - Stereo
Project Audio Format: 48000 Hz - 32 bit floating point - Stereo
Total Duration: 00:02:25:12
Average Data Rate: 92.6 MB / second
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.067
Video: DV 25 Mbps - bottom field first - pulldown none
Audio: 48000 Hz - 16 Bit - 2 Channels
System,
Motherboard: MSI K9N Platinum
Basic Input Output Systme(BIOS): Default System BIOS
Central Processing Unit(CPU) X 2
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
Physical Memory X 2
1024MB
1024MB
Hard Disk X 2
Maxtor 6Y200P0 (190GB)
MAXTOR STM3250820AS (233GB)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7100 GS
Monitor: Philips 107T5/F5/S5
Audio Device: E-MU E-DSP Audio Processor (WDM)
Everything is updated.
Thanx,
lestra

Hey mister Millaard,
I have problem because Premiere always use Mainconcept DV Pro codec when import file in my case.But I find solution:
From
C/Program Files/Adobe/Adobe Premiere Pro CS3/Plug-ins/en_US
I remove
ImporterMCDVCPRO file and now Premiere import avi files as MS-DV AVI.
Maybe this can help somebody else.
lestra

Lightroom 5 exporting wrong file sizes?

I am having trouble with Lightroom 5 exporting images at incorrect file sizes. For example, if I use my export preset for images with long edge 2500 pixels and maximum size 1000k it is exporting images at 1500-2500k.
Is anyone else experiencing this? I am wondering if it is a bug.
Thanks

I never had a problem with it in LR4. The example I gave was one of many options I tried. At the other end I asked it to produce smaller files (eg 1500pixels long edge) with a 1000k maximum and I could only get them to output at around 160k.
I have since realised that I neglected to mention that I was using LR/Mogrify2 plug in to add a text graphic to the images. I experimented with turning that option off and I was able to produce a 2500px long edge file at 996k. As soon as I turn that option on again the file ouptuts at 1600k (where I have specified at 1000k limit).
This was never a problem with LR4 so there is a conflict or a bug somewhere.
Is anyone else using a LR / Mogrify 2 plug in and experiencing unpredictable results? I have the option to use LR / Mogrify 2's version of ImageMagick checked.
Message was edited by: Shipp
So I just did further testing. It seems that LR5 cannot control the maximum file size when working with Lr / Mogrify 2. If I ask the plug in to resize the image and control the maximum file size I can produce a file with long edge 2500pix, 1000k maximum size and the text graphic with no problem at all, as I used to be able to do with LR4. I will contact the plug in developer and see if they are aware of this.

"Get Info" displaying wrong file size

Hey Guys take a look at the image to see my issue
get info shows two different file sizes but then when i send the file or upload it to a server it shows the real file size
anyone see this before?

Hiya.
When I attach the image to an new empty email, before I send it I do not see any "Image Size popup at the bottom right corner of the window." The only size info I can see is the "Message Size" on the bottom left hand side. On the bottom right hand side there is Image Size with a drop down menu where you can choose to view the image either by "Actual Size"(default), Small, Medium or Large.
I am only able to see the attachment size info above the image after I have sent it when I go into Sent Messages or after I have sent it to myself I can see it in the received message.
Can you tell me where to hover the cursor to get this "Image Size popup"?
I am using Mail - Version 4.2 to send the message.
Thanks again Thomas.

Wrong file size on Linux download page

Hello:
This is what the Linux Oracle 9iR2 server download page looks like:
Oracle9i Database Release 2 Enterprise/Standard Edition for Intel Linux <http://otn.oracle.com/images/white_spacer.gif> Download the Complete Files <http://otn.oracle.com/images/bullets_and_symbols/red_arrow_bullet_35.gif> lnx_920_disk1.cpio.gz (553,607,967 bytes) <--- WRONG!! <http://otn.oracle.com/images/bullets_and_symbols/red_arrow_bullet_35.gif> lnx_920_disk2.cpio.gz (588,817,480 bytes) <http://otn.oracle.com/images/bullets_and_symbols/red_arrow_bullet_35.gif> lnx_920_disk3.cpio.gz (442,135,815 bytes)
The problem has to do with the first file (lnx_920_disk1.cpio.gz).
The stated size (553,607,967 bytes) is WRONG.
I have downloaded those 3 files more than a dozen times, getting
files of varying sizes. After several weeks, I finally had 3 files
with consistent sizes. However, the file #1 produces an error
message from gunzip (unexpected end of file).
If Oracle Corporation claims to be a technology- and Internet-savvy
company, they should know that the best way to avoid problems like
the above is:
- offering an FTP (i.e. TCP-based) download option
- including the corresponding MD5SUM next to each file.
Everybody else (well, probably not Microsoft) is doing this.
Why not Oracle?
Thanks from a very frustrated sysadmin.
-Ramon F. Herrera

Hey mister Millaard,
I have problem because Premiere always use Mainconcept DV Pro codec when import file in my case.But I find solution:
From
C/Program Files/Adobe/Adobe Premiere Pro CS3/Plug-ins/en_US
I remove
ImporterMCDVCPRO file and now Premiere import avi files as MS-DV AVI.
Maybe this can help somebody else.
lestra

Iphoto showing wrong file size and length for movie after upgrade

in iphoto, an AVI from my camera is shown as being 1:04 long and 76 MB. but playing the file shows it is 9 seconds long, and Finder shows the file as being 10 MB.
a bit more about this file: I shot the video with my still camera and imported it. on the camera, I then edited it down from 1:04 to 0:09, and reimported it. both files were in my iphoto library before upgrading to iphoto '08; iphoto saw they had different lengths and did not consider them duplicates.
now, I see only one file with the time of 1:04 (the original length) and it plays the edited version. while I would prefer to have both versions, as I did before, I would more like to know why iphoto is showing the wrong information for a file the was fine in the previous version of iphoto.

in iphoto, an AVI from my camera is shown as being 1:04 long and 76 MB. but playing the file shows it is 9 seconds long, and Finder shows the file as being 10 MB.
a bit more about this file: I shot the video with my still camera and imported it. on the camera, I then edited it down from 1:04 to 0:09, and reimported it. both files were in my iphoto library before upgrading to iphoto '08; iphoto saw they had different lengths and did not consider them duplicates.
now, I see only one file with the time of 1:04 (the original length) and it plays the edited version. while I would prefer to have both versions, as I did before, I would more like to know why iphoto is showing the wrong information for a file the was fine in the previous version of iphoto.

Finder reporting wrong file size

I have a folder I wish to burn, it is 620 meg and has many small files in it, but when I go to burn it through the finder, I get an error that it is 900 meg and will not burn onto 1 disk. Backup tells me I need 3 disks for this folder, why?

I think the issue has to do with the fact that some programs have not adopted the new method yet. Unfortunately programs like iTunes can be used on on operating systems as far back as Tiger which used the old system. I noticed this several months ago and find it very irritating, especially when trying to do things like burn DVDs/CDs and trying to fill them up as much as possible. The only thing you can do about it is provide feedback to Apple at http://www.apple.com/feedback/ and hope they fix it in upcoming releases of their software.

Incredibly strange file size discrepancy only appears in image files (jpg, gif, png)!

I'm creating a bunch of banners for google ads, yahoo ads, ...etc in Photoshop on my Mac OS!
The .gif files of these banners appear to TRIPLE in size when on the MAC (>150KB), but when transferred to windows; the real file size shows correctly! (<50KB)
It is not a result of the base2 vs base10 discrepancy since the difference in size is simply too big, and it only happens with files created on Photoshop on my Mac.
The reason I know that windows is showing the correct size while my Mac OS is displaying the wrong size, is that the file gets approved by google and yahoo ads, even though Mac OS shows that it surpasses the size limit (50KB) three times over!
This isn't an isolated incident either, all image files created in Photoshop on the MAC continue this weird behaviour! However, files downloaded from the net appear to be consistent on both operating systems!
One example is the attached screenshot:
Explanation, please??

Geez, sorry I offended you Mr. Jobs (incarnate)!
You came in here with a three ton chip on your shoulders. Did you really expect sunshine and puppies in return?
No, I expected useful help, and I got it from Jeffrey Jones. Thanks again Jeffrey!
I mean, when you move or upload it, it loses this data association anyways!
To a drive which doesn't support Apple's AB tree structure (NTFS, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), yes. To another HFS+ drive, no.
What about uploading the file to the cloud?? Does it lose this association or not?? And does anyone really care about the data in the Resource fork?
This "Resource Fork" means nothing to the file owner, only to the OS and the Drive. Therefore, it shouldn't be added to the total. Period. Because its not part of the file, its part of Apple's tree structure! This is really a simple concept, not sure why you are bending over backwords to defend a clearly stupid oversight from apple!
There's no reason to force me to use the command line to get the real file size of a GIF! There's just no excuse for that!
If an OS is saying it is fetching file size information for a single file, it should do exactly that! Not add hidden Resource Forks that are part of the OS's internal workings
OS X is fetching the file size. It's file size, not the way a different OS would report it.
There is no such thing as it's file size. A file size is a file size, accross all platforms, on the cloud, wherever!
A GIF file should have the same file size whether its on windows, linux, unix, darwin, freeBSD, or anything else. The only time its weight should vary is in outer space!
That is why I'm surprised that they are breaking simple UI Design rules.
The User Interface has nothing to do with the file structure of a drive.
I don't care about the structure of the drive!! Neither should you, neither should the average user!
A good UI should NOT concern the user with this! The average user doesn't care about these Resource Forks, and will never try to view them, therefore, there is no logical reason to add up their file sizes to the total size of each file, and then to make things worse, hide that fact! That only creates confusion, and it makes it so much harder for a designer like myself to view the REAL file sizes of my image files! Now, whenever I'm on my MAC, I will have to run command line scripts to be able to see if my GIF files (that I work on EVERYDAY) meet the file size quota, because Mac OS adds up hidden files that I have no use for and gives me the WRONG file size!
Let's say this again: when you select a file and click get info, you should get the info for the file you selcted. Nothing more, nothing less! I don't care if the file structure creates an entire colony of hidden files, they should be completely hidden to me, and if not, the Get Info dialog box should at least give me two sizes, one is the REAL file size, and the other is the added up file size for the Resource Fork as well (although I can't think of any good reason why it should add up the Resource Fork size anyways)!
do you think it is at all logical, that when you select 300 or so files, and click Get Info, that it open 300 windows at once each showing separate information for each file? Or does it make a lot more sense, intuitively, to get the total tally of all the files selected added up, without having to hold down shortcut keys when clicking them to do so?
Yes, it is logical because that's what you, the user, told the OS to do. You wanted the Get Info data on 300 individual items. I don't know about you, but I avoid the menu bar as much as possible (your reference to avoiding shortcut keys). Command+I will always give you singular Get Info dialogue boxes.
No, that's not what I told the OS to do. I selected 300 files cumulatively, therefore, I should get the cumulative info for all the selected files. That's just common sense. Every other OS seems to get this!
And I'm hard pressed to find anyone who has found a use for having 300 get info boxes open at the same time. Therefore, that shouldn't be the default.
Will you start defending apple's decision to stick with the one button mouse for all these years depriving us from the all important context menu as well?? There was absolutely no good reason to do that, just as there is absolutely no good reason to do this!

Incorrect file sizes in Finder

Was looking at other discussions about file sizes but they didn't seem to reflect the same issue that I'm having. Maybe I misread them.
Since updating to Snow leopard on all my Macs, I noticed that all the files are reflecting about 3-8% more than their actual size. Basically, the Finder is reporting the wrong file sizes. By using a file transfer software like Transmit, the file sizes are reflected correctly. For example, if I download iTunes 9.3, the download file is 93.6MB but the Finder shows 98.2MB. Transmit shows 93.6MB which is correct.
Anyway to fix this annoying issue?

I think the issue has to do with the fact that some programs have not adopted the new method yet. Unfortunately programs like iTunes can be used on on operating systems as far back as Tiger which used the old system. I noticed this several months ago and find it very irritating, especially when trying to do things like burn DVDs/CDs and trying to fill them up as much as possible. The only thing you can do about it is provide feedback to Apple at http://www.apple.com/feedback/ and hope they fix it in upcoming releases of their software.

Osx lion get info reporting incorrect file size

Hi all,
I am trying to troubleshoot a strange problem I am having with Adobe Revel. Adobe have been helping me to resolve it but my mac is displaying some odd behaviour which I need to explain and which may be affecting the adobe app.
The adobe app creates a library file of pictures and the file should be growing as I download more pictures. If I right click on the folder and "Get info" the folder size shown is smaller than I would expect at 25MB given that it should contain a good number of Jpeg files.
I have downloaded an app called "Grand Perspective" to help me manage disk space and for this particular file it reports a completely different (much Larger) file size than "Get Info" did (155 MB) which is much closer to what I would expect to find and it is growing as more pictures are downloaded.
Any idea what could cause "Get Info" to report the wrong file size.
I have another osx Lion mac with the same software loaded and although a completely different machine, it reports the same file size for this library folder as grand perspective does.
Any help gratefully accepted.
Slarti

I'm finding the same behaviour running Lion 10.7.2 and the file with the exact same problem as yours is a Sente (bibliography software) library containing references and pdfs. 'Get Info' reports it as 130KB but I know the file is much much larger than that! Even the Size reported on Get Info shows 874.4MB which is still too small. If I 'Show Package Contents' on the file and 'Get Info' on the 'Contents' folder which it then shows, I get the correct size of 1.14GB
Apple Tech Support over the phone wasn't able to explain this behaviour.

MPEG -2 Blu-Ray more accurate file size reading in Encore than H.264 Blu-Ray???

Hi,
I just read on Kenstone.com that if you encode a MPEG-2 Blu-Ray instead of an H.264 Blu-Ray, Encore will give you a much closer and more accurate file size reading.
Is this true?
Encore CS 5.1

EdwurdAdam wrote:
Hi,
I just read on Kenstone.com that if you encode a MPEG-2 Blu-Ray instead of an H.264 Blu-Ray, Encore will give you a much closer and more accurate file size reading.
Is this true?
Encore CS 5.1
They are all guesses anyway.
H264 will get you more on the disc, as it is a much more efficient codec. Same quality in MPEG-2 will be twice the size, roughly.

Encoding for Encore from Premiere Pro - File Size

I'm working on a Blu-ray project that contains four separate tutorials, each with several individual clips. I exported each clip (chapter) out of After Effects CS6 using the standard H264 preset. The tutorials range from 2 to 5 hours each. After all was said and done, the total file size of all H264 video clips was just under 25GB, perfect for a Blu-ray burn.
I created four sequences in Premiere Pro, one for each tutorial. All of the H264 video files were brought into Premiere Pro, chapter markers were added, ready to rock.
When I attempted to export each sequence using the H264 Blu-ray preset, I found that using that preset would result in a grand total of about 75GB worth of data. So I selected the MPEG2 Blu-ray preset, and it was almost the same. I manually adjusted target bitrate settings, dropped quality to as low as it would go, and still the estimated file size far exceeded the 25GB I had available.
All tutorials total about 15 hours of 1280x720 30p content. I realize that's a ton of data, but AE exported all of this content using H264 and the grand total file size was under 25GB. But bringing those very same video clips into Premiere Pro, assembling them, and exporting them results in much, much larger files. I even attempted to import the AE exports directly into Encore to avoid having to re-encode anything, and still it estimated that the project's file size exceeded 75GB, even though the source footage of H264 video was less than 25GB.
Right now I'm down-rezzing all of the footage to 720x480 and the file sizes are smaller, although I'll still need to decrease the bit rates significant if I have any shot of dumping all of this onto a single 25GB Blu-ray.
I do realize that 15 hours is a lot for a single disc, but what I don't understand is how I can have 15 hours of H264 exported out of AE result in less than 25GB, but using that exact same footage in PPro/Encore results in over 75GB of footage.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Windows 7 64-bit
Adobe Creative Suite Production Premium CS6
(After Effects/Premiere Pro/Encore)

The thing is, the AE exports look just fine. (The tutorials are just a bunch of screen capture/software stuff.) I didn't mess with any of the default preset settings for H264 out of AE, but yeah, they must've been encoded at pretty low bitrates.
I wasn't aware that BD specifications have minimum bitrate requirements, so that would explain why I'm unable to decrease the bitrates within PPro or Encore. Thanks for the info on that. I just figured as long as the footage was at least 720P with square pixel ratio encoded in H264 or MPEG2 I'd be fine, but apparently not!
The tutorials are for my own personal use, so I'm not too concerned about decreased resolution if I am able to make the SD content fit. Otherwise, yeah, burning multiple discs is my only option.
Thanks for the prompt feedback.

List view file size is wrong until I reopen window

Hi,
Often, if not all the time, Finder windows will a) not show the number if items in the folder and b) the file size for newly added items, since the window was opened, will be wrong. Example: I convert .mov files to .dv. When the converter (USBVision Exporter) finishes, I'll look at the file in that window. It will have a size of maybe 4k or so. After I close that window and reopen it, the file size will be correct, hundreds of mb or a gb or so. Just waiting for the Finder to show the correct size is futile. I have to close the window and reopen it for the Finder to show the correct size. If the window is not open, often if not all the time, I'll need to open it, close it and reopen it again to get the correct file size to show.
Actually, lately to get the correct file size to show I may have to select that file and then the Finder will update it's size. Reopening the window does nothing however many times I reopen it. That ain't right... It should show the correct size whenever the window is open.
Why does this happen? (The Finder not showing the number of items is not necessarily coincidental to this but is a similar problem.) This has happened pre-10.4.6 but I am not sure how far back, maybe since I bought the machine, 11/05 (10.4.4?).
Thank you.
John L

Annoying isn't it? Sometimes I have to relaunch Finder to get it to update. Send Apple Feedback to let them know just how annoying it is:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/
At least you and I can actually see the files that were added--lots of people don't even get that much, especially if they're dealing with a Network folder.
Over at ars technica they have a mantra: Fix the Freakin' Finder!
Francine
Francine
Schwieder

File size wrong when editing in Photoshop

Sometimes when I right click on an image in Lightroom and choose Edit in Photoshop, the resulting file in Photoshop has a size of 72 dpi and usually like around 3" on the long side. The original file is 13 mp so it isn't because the initial file is small. This happens maybe 20% of the time, and I cannot find a pattern to it.
My workaround is to open that image in Bridge, go through ACR and it is then fine in Photoshop.
I am using the Photoshop CS3 beta, but I don't suspect that is the problem.
Anyone else having this issue? Is it something I am inadvertantly doing? Or if it is a known problem is there a fix?

Hmmm. Wonder why these few images would be any different than the ones before/after them? They are all raw files from my 5D, imported by Lightroom from my cf card. And again, I can process the same files I had problems with in Lightroom through Bridge and go into ACR and they are fine that way. Next time it happens, I will email you the CR2 file...thanks. Hopefully you can see something interesting about it!
Is there some place in Lightroom that I can specify what ppi and/or file size to use when I edit in Photoshop? The files (other than these weird ones) are currently coming in at 240 and I'd prefer 300. Just saves me one little step of changing it, but hey every step helps in a workflow!

Reduce PDF File Size - any ideas?

Hi all,
I have a C++/C# programs that generates PDF's in Adobe Reader using Infragistics. This is a recent change from using VS View as our old method of illustrating - we now use Infragistics. This has resulted in our PDF File sizes almost doubling due to us now using Bookmarks within the PDFs and also having to embed the fonts. There are some pictures used but these are already very small so they are not the issue. I was wondering does anyone have any ideas of how we could possibly reduce the size again or any possible work arounds.
Any help would be great.
Colly (Ireland)

Where do these EPS files come from Photoshop or Illustrator?
Illustrator
There may be nothing wrong with EPS files technically, they are considered archaic in a modern workflow. Best to save as a .ai with pdf compatible file - or to save them as PDF x4a with Illustrator Editing Capabilities enabled.
But I don't think there's any need to run out and convert all your files - perhaps keep it in mind going forward.
Photoshop
EPS is really not the best format. If it's pure raster then PSD or TIFF would be preferred format, if it's Raster + Vector Shapes, Vector Masks, Text Layers then PDF is preferred over EPS (with photoshop editing capabilities enabled).
File sizes react differently depending on the content on the choice of compression. Heavy Vector files from Illustrator can cause Huge file sizes in PDFs.
See this article (and more importantly the comments!)
http://indesignsecrets.com/creating-smaller-pdfs-from-a-vector-dense-book.php
If you can provide a bit more info on your workflow and what settings you are using to save it would be great.

Wrong file size in Encore?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for