Differences in file size

Similar Questions

• HP 7200 VS PRO 8600: Differences in file size

  I have two HP products and I use for scanning documents.  When I scan a similar document in two sizes of the file scanners are radically different.    The size fo the product HP Photsmart C7200 file and the excellent scan file that is very clear and sharp.    The HP Officejet Pro 8600 will do the same, but the size of the file produced is much greater.   There is a hotfix available that will reduce the size of a scanned document file, produced by the Pro 8600?   I wanted to because the 8600 a sheet feed feature which is nice.

  Thank you

  Hi @fickjr,

  Welcome to the HP Forums

  You shouldn't need a software patch, just need to change some settings.

  If you open the HP printer Assistant and choose scan a Document or picture (or open HP Scan) you can then select scan to PDF. When you have selected, click settings in advance, and on the file tab, there is a slider to switch between the smaller size and better quality. With this, you can create a scan of the smaller files.

  Hope that helps, let me know!

• Difference in file size

  In lighroom 4 my image shows as being 9.9 MP. In the finder of mac it shows as 59.2 MP.  Anyone know what is happening here?

  Sandra

  richardplondon wrote:

  I can't find anything in LR list megapixel, however; just the pixel dimensions that appear as the original and also within the current limit of LR cultures.

  Richard, megapixel is one of the options available under the magnifying glass of the Display Options...

• Importing video alpha channel: what to export for Adobe Premiere? Reduced file size Important.

  I want to import a small 20 second animation at 1920 x 1080, RGB + alpha superimposed, all less than 5 MB of After Effects in Adobe Premiere. What are my options? Used to be my go-to the file format FLV files. An example FLV pose this requirement would be around 700 KB.

  Export in. MOV with Alpha as a result of this same file 700KB to 950MB (difference of size of files after x 1350).

  Export in. AVI with Alpha translates this same file 700KB to 9800 MB (a x 14000 times difference in file size).

  Export in lossless with Alpha translates this same file 700KB to 1100 MB (difference of size of files after x 1500).

  I surrender all the little animations of 10-30 per project and make them all integrated into Adobe Premiere, so a dynamic link is not practical. This was a nice project of ~ 15MB will now have to be (at least) a project of ~ 20GB. This is not sustainable.

  Any help appreciated, thanks.

  My choice would be Cineform.

  The files will be not small, but it is an unreasonable expectation here, I think.  The size of the intermediaries is not usually something that worry, not only the expected results.

• File size dilemma

  Dear all,

  I took a few pictures yesterday with my iPod Touch fifth Geration and Adobe Bridge (of just clicking the file in the Finder) shows the file size of jpeg files at about 2.33 MB with dimensions of 1936 x 2592 or 26.9 x 36.0, 72 dpi.  When I open the file in Adobe Photoshop CC, the file size is 14.4 MB with the same dimensions.

  Why is there such a difference in file size?  Thank you.

  And, once I work on the file in Photoshop and save it again AS A TIFF IMAGE without changing dimensions, but do work with filters, NIK, Adobe Bridge now displays the new file to 14,39 megs.  I know that TIFF resumes the file size more than the jpeg format, but y at - there a lot of difference in the size of the file?

  Small town Gal

  The captured by phone file is a compressed jpg file.  When you open it in Photoshop, it returned to its full uncompressed size.  Same thing for save as a tif file: a tif file is not compressed as a jpg.

• Why the file size is reduced when the visibility of the layer is hidden?

  With the same PSD file, I have hidden the visibility layer and recorded another copy, and I noticed that the file size is significantly reduced.

  Anyone know why?

  Thank you

  When you maximize the verified compatibility, Photoshop records a version flattened your file in the psd. When you hide the layers and save, of course, the flattened version will consist of your file psd with these missing layers. If these layers had a lot of additional information, as opposed to simply a lot of white space or easily compressible full areas, then you will see a difference in file size.

• The file size of backup C drive

  Hello

  Running Server 2008 R2 I noticed that there is a huge difference in the size of the backup of the C drive. The only thing on the disc is the installation of the OS with standard windows services. Hourly snapshots do he goes from 30 MB to 11FR in size.

  I'm just curious to know which would cause the huge difference in file size and if there is anyway to keep this to a minimum. Drive C arouses large sets of our readers of data backup.

  Any idea is appreciated.

  -Tom

  Hi all

  Dell-AppAssure Agent is the change tracking on the volumes (at the level of the block) and write to the log files driver (located in the System Volume Information folder). This files are designed for the drivers of Dell-AppAssure so information in a convenient format for the driver.

  Changes may be caused by the system logs or suggested as Wes Antivirus software. Swap file could also cause the changed blocks.

  Thank you

  Anton kolomiiets.

• Why the change in file size is not a difference in how I can put on a cd?

  I'm trying to burn audio files to a disc that will play in a cd player.  The size of the files is not that big.  If I just dropped everything on the disk in the form of data files, they would be easily fits on the drive with plenty of room to spare.  BUT when I go through Windows Media Player or I-Tunes to make the drive, it takes 5 discs to fit everything on.  I changed the WMA files into MP3 files, but it remains the same.  Then, I used Windows Media Player to convert the files to a file size reduced.  But it seems not to matter.  There are still 5 discs.

  There is obviously something that I don't understand the difference in burning data instead of audio files and the size of the file.  I'd appreciate any help I could get.  Thank you!

  I'm trying to burn audio files to a disc that will play in a cd player.  The size of the files is not that big.  If I just dropped everything on the disk in the form of data files, they would be easily fits on the drive with plenty of room to spare.  BUT when I go through Windows Media Player or I-Tunes to make the drive, it takes 5 discs to fit everything on.  I changed the WMA files into MP3 files, but it remains the same.  Then, I used Windows Media Player to convert the files to a file size reduced.  But it seems not to matter.  There are still 5 discs.

  There is obviously something that I don't understand the difference in burning data instead of audio files and the size of the file.  I'd appreciate any help I could get.  Thank you!

  ======================================
  If you notice on your empty CD there are two limitations...
  for example I have one here that says... 80 MIN / 700 MB...
  (this means time 'or' file size... not both)

  If you create a... Audio / music CD... (one that will play in)
  most CD players)... the limits are dictated by the duration.
  If you see the directory on an Audio CD / music you will be
  Notice the files have extensions of the ADC (this is the result
  regardless of the format of the source files).

  If you create a data CD... for example a MP3 cd which will be
  play in a player compatible with MP3 files... the limits
  are dictated by the size of the file.

  Then you have a player that is MP3... you could
  create a data CD with a lot of files unlike Audio
  CD and strictly limited by the total duration of the files.

  The following article might be worth the drive... it offers information
  on the creation of data and Audio CD.

  Burn a CD or DVD in Windows Media Player
  http://Windows.Microsoft.com/en-us/Windows-Vista/burn-a-CD-or-DVD-in-Windows-Media-Player

  Volunteer - MS - MVP - Digital Media Experience J - Notice_This is not tech support_I'm volunteer - Solutions that work for me may not work for you - * proceed at your own risk *.

• TIFF image file size difference

  Hi all, I have created a bitmap, mono, CA. 400px square.

  Then save the file.

  If I go to "get info" (I'm on an Apple Mac), it indicates that the file size is 97 k.

  If I open the file in P'shop (CS5.5) and go to "Image size", it says that the file is 19.2 k.

  Anyone know why I get two different file formats?

  Thank you, PR

  I'm sure that the file TIFF and Photoshop "Image size" are the two 19KO by chance. The "Image size" is the number of bytes consumed by the pixel data uncompressed. A TIFF file must contain a header, so the data in the image file will be compressed, then the file header will bring the total size of the file 19 KB.

  Photoshop incorporates metadata TIFF that your client probably didn't need. Preview of your Mac app allows you to reduce the size of TIFF:

  In Photoshop, copy the image to the Clipboard.

  Preview, do "file > new from Clipboard" followed by Save in TIFF format and compression enabled.

  (Do not open the TIFF saved with preview and then re - Photoshop Save as useless information will be maintained. Use the Clipboard).

• update the file size difference U43M1D204 error code

  I had the Creative Suite 6 Master Collection installed yesterday, notification of updates appeared about seven, they did successfully with the exception of Photoshop Camera Raw and Media Encoder

  I tried a workaround in this thread, I deleted the folder update MAO, but no use

  http://forums.Adobe.com/message/3864845#3864845

  I went to save the aamu.log file and found the error messages:

  2012-08 - 17 T 16: 20:29: connect to: = http://swupdl.Adobe.com/updates/OOBE/aam20/Mac/AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1/Setup.dmg

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:30: ThreadDownloadUpdates: need to download a .sig for this dmg file to: Users/bahaelaila7/Library/Application Support/Adobe/AAMUpdater/1.0/Install/AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1/Setup.sig

  2012-08 - 17 T 16: 20:30: ThreadDownloadUpdates: download .sig file to: http://swupdl.Adobe.com/updates/OOBE/aam20/Mac/AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1/Setup.SIG

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: ThreadDownloadUpdates: ERROR: File Size Mismatch between what is given in the manifest, and which is that of bob.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: WARNING - download failed because of the disparity of size of file on the server.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: download of updates back State for reffId = AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: download of updates return State = 43

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: return outError = 204 updates download

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates download percentage of return = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates download return string = U43M1D204 unique error code

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: data download updates flagship notification error code. = 204

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: check the updates has been completed successfully.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates, return status for reffId = AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates return State = 21

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: check outError return = 0 updates

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: check the updates percent return = 100

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates to string of unique return error code = U21M1C0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: WARNING - download failed because of the disparity of size of file on the server.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: download of updates back State for reffId = AdobeMediaEncoderCS6-6/6.0.1

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: download of updates return State = 43

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: return outError = 204 updates download

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates download percentage of return = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCGetprogress: updates download return string = U43M1D204 unique error code

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:31: UCDownloadUpdates: (A) UCIsSelfUpdateAvailable API returned value = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:33: < < UCDownloadUpdates > > call back with the value outErr = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 20:33: ThreadDownloadUpdates: download the installer to update refID: PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/7.1.71

  2012-08 - 17 T 16: 23:34: connect to: = http://swupdl.Adobe.com/updates/OOBE/aam20/Mac/PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/7.1.71/Setup.dmg

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:35: ThreadDownloadUpdates: need to download a .sig for this dmg file to: Users/bahaelaila7/Library/Application Support/Adobe/AAMUpdater/1.0/Install/PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/7.1.71/Setup.sig

  2012-08 - 17 T 16: 23:35: ThreadDownloadUpdates: download .sig file to: http://swupdl.Adobe.com/updates/OOBE/aam20/Mac/PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/7.1.71/Setup.SIG

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: ThreadDownloadUpdates: ERROR: File Size Mismatch between what is given in the manifest, and which is that of bob.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: WARNING - download failed because of the disparity of size of file on the server.

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: download of updates back State for reffId = PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/7.1.71

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: download of updates return State = 43

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: return outError = 204 updates download

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: updates download percentage of return = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: updates download return string = U43M1D204 unique error code

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCGetprogress: data download updates flagship notification error code. = 204

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCIsSelfUpdateAvailable: function returned with value = > = 0

  2012 08-17 T 16: 23:36: UCIsSelfUpdateAvailable: BOB is downloaded = > = 0

  OK, I downloaded the dmg files listed in the newspaper, they have installed successfully, open MAO and he said all software up-to-date

  problem solved, now I know what I would do in the future if it happens again

• What is FAT, FAT32 & NTFS maximum file size of file systems supported? File system of all the methods of the passage of FAT & FAT32 to NTFS without formatting is appreciated.

  What is FAT, FAT32 & NTFS maximum file size of file systems supported? File system of all the methods of the passage of FAT & FAT32 to NTFS without formatting is appreciated. (IE without deleting the files from a particular disk).

  Difference between material FAT & FAT32?

  I have a disk full of files, and it is in the FAT32 file system. As I can't copy large files (5 GB +) in this player, I intend to fix this by changing the file systems. Apparently, it is not possible to do it without formatting. I am curious about a way to do this without destroying the drive.

  Thanks in advance.

  Eguy

  Tuesday, October 9, 2012 16:55:51 + 0000, Eguy wrote:

  What is FAT, FAT32 & NTFS maximum file size of file systems supported? File system of all the methods of the passage of FAT & FAT32 to NTFS without formatting is appreciated. (IE without deleting the files from a particular disk).

  Difference between material FAT & FAT32?

  First, note that there are three varieties of FAT: FAT12, FAT16, and
  FAT32. Many people call just FAT16 FAT, because before that FAT32 is out.
  FAT16 is the only variety used for hard drives, so just
  The FAT was not enough.

  FAT12 (hardly any more used) had a maximum volume size of 12 MB.
  It has been used almost exclusively for floppy disks.

  FAT16 was used on hard disks (or partitions) up to 4 GB and had a
  cluster size which varied from 2 KB to 64 KB, depending on the size of
  the partition. It serves almost never again, because almost nobody does
  a as small as 4 GB partitions.

  FAT32 FAT16 succeeded and has a maximum drive size of 2 TB. His
  maximum file size is 4 GB, which explains why you can't copy a file of 5 GB to
  it. its cluster size is 4 KB up to an 8 GB partition. Beyond 8 GB the
  cluster size develops up to 32 KB.
  NTFS, that's what almost everyone should use on their hard drives
  today. Its maximum volume size is 2 ^ ^ 64-1 and its maximum file size
  16 × 1024 is ^ ^ 6 bytes (much more than the bigger hard drive available
  today). Cluster size is 4 KB, regardless of the size of the volume.

  I have a disk full of files, and it is in the FAT32 file system. As I can't copy large files (5 GB +) in this player, I intend to fix this by changing the file systems.

  Good! You should.

  Apparently, it is not possible to do it without formatting.

  It's not correct. To convert to NTFS, use you the CONVERT
  command. But first read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm , because
  There is an important question about the size of cluster that is not obvious.

  Also note that conversion is an important step, touching everything on your
  drive. When you take a big step, no matter how unlikely it is
  always possible that something can go wrong. For this reason, there
  careful to make sure that you have a backup of everything you can not afford to
  lose before you start.

  Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

• Why is there a difference between the size of the image in photoshop and the investigator?

  I compare this picture here... In photoshop, he says 1.03 MB, and it is said in the finder 217 k.  Same location of the file, even on my computer.  Anyone know why?  Thank you!!!

  

  
  

  
  

  Because there is a difference between the size of the physical FILE of a recorded file, and the actual size of the same file MEMORY use when it is opened in an application.

  Jpg is a file format of an image compressed with loss that compresses the image data when recording. When you open this file in Photoshop, it will be decompressed in memory, as Photoshop requires access memory of uncompressed data.

  Simple as that. Try to save as uncompressed tiff file. You will notice that the file size will be the same as the open in Photoshop.

• problems with quality vs. file size in export to YouTube 1080 p

  Hello

  I used to use NCH videopad as a Publisher began. He had shocking performance but gives really good quality and small size files.

  That is to say, I could export 1080 p 30 min video of good quality for YouTube in less than 2 GB file size, but Premiere Elements can

  Get anywhere near the same quality, even at 4 GB.

  So what I need is someone to tell me the parameters I need.

  Currently I export the shadowplay film recorded in 1080 60 fps 50Mbits (according to shadowplay).

  If I export to AVCH (whatever) with YouTube Widescreen HD - set it to match the source, I can't

  get a good quality. I even put the target at 20 and the other at 18 and it is still grainy quality and file sizes

  4 GB. The only way I can get the same quality I received of Videopad is with a 7 GB file into elements.

  Today I tried to export a video (30 minutes) and all day trying to find a good setting, and

  each parameter gets me grainy footage.

  If someone can you please just give me the detailed settings, I need (without the jargon) please.

  The problem is with file sizes as what he deletes my additions to my half a string because

  limits on usage of my data.

  Thank you

  NeonsStyle

  corn

  I think that you need to remove temporarily and advanced then refreshed. Then go through the following.

  The first link in your last message does not, but that a second was full of information (really great).

  If this is supposed to represent the output of VideoPad, here's the story.

  1. you have an AVCHD.mp4 file MPEG2.mpg is not. The file is 1920 x 1080 @ a progressive frame.

  2. our goal is progressive rate - variable and not constant, noted that the 3 frames rate in playback of video properties...

  minimum frame rate = 10,000 frames per second

  frame rate = 29,888 frames per second

  maximum frame rate = 30,000 images per second

  First Elements not managed well with the video recorded with a variable rather than a constant rate. Symptoms range from Premiere Elements of audio desynchronization to not being able to import the video at all. The typical remedy is to take video in the free program of brake hand to get the H.264.mp4 with constant frame rate (29.97) model. Then, you take the export of brake hand in Premiere Elements project using first elements add Media/files and folders.

  https://handbrake.fr/

  Also note that VideoPad product export with a low flow, i.e. 7759 Kbps (equivalent to 7.7 Mbps). You were trying for 36 / 50 Mbps in the export of Premiere Elements. It is an explanation of the difference in size of the files that run you in your comparisons of software.

  Since you don't seem to be involved with video MPEG2.mpg, I write what follows for information purposes... What do you do with an xml file if you used the 1080p29.97 HDTV high quality predefined with Publish + share/computer/MPEG? You should get a single file, MPEG2.mpg. If you use one of the presets whose name begins with MPEG2 (interlaced preset who is not progressive), then you will get two files, the video file and a file of information m2t.xmlses. Nothing to do with the xml file. All you want is the video file that will be MPEG2.m2t.

  Right now I'd take that video in Handbrake for 1920 x 1080p29.97, like H.264.mp4, import this file in Premiere Elements, export as a AVCHD.mp4 MP4 H.264 1920 x 1080 p 30, get a core file line with default transmission speeds and, if necessary, start to lower the bitrate to 8 Mbit / s by looking at the quality.

  Please consider.

  Thank you.

  RTA

  Add on... If you need a how tos tos for handbrake, let me know. It is quick and easy with the adjustment under video tab key.

• Why using the typewriter in acrobat 9 adds less file size that the use of the text of the comment in acrobat 11 tool?

  Why using the typewriter in acrobat 9 adds less file size that the use of the text of the comment in acrobat 11 tool?

  Two employees, one using acrobat 9 and the other uses acrobat 11. The two employees open a secure document one page 105 KB in size. Used using acrobat 9 using the typewriter tool to add comments. Document increases in volume to 137 kb. Second employee using acrobat 11 uses the comment add the text tool (since it is no longer a typewriter tool). This employee has to use tool once and the document immediately increases size of 105 k to 950 + kb. Why is this? What can be done to avoid this?

  As I suspected much earlier, the difference is in the fonts that are used for the text. For the smaller file, text annotation font is Times Roman. that is a policy that is essentially built into Acrobat/Reader. For the larger file, the font is Tahoma, which is not an integrated police force, which ends by happens so the entire police gets embedded in the PDF file. The size of this font on disk file is 681KO on my system (Mac), and it ends up taking more space when they are embedded in the PDF file. The same type of thing happens with form fields and this is done so that all characters in the font are available when the text is changed in a system that may not have the installed font.

  One of the problems is if you try to reduce the size of the file by changing the font that used up one of the built-in ones (Courier, Helvetica, TImes Roman), Acrobat does not remove the now unused of the file font information, if you do not get the reduction in file size that you can imagine, even if the font is no longer presented as being incorporated. I submitted this as a bug some time ago, but it has not been fixed.

• the file size reduction of Essbase cube/pag bitmap compression

  We see some huge pag files in our essbase cube and Oracle had suggested to change the bitmap image compression to see if this will help. (we currently have "no compression")
  That said, what is the difference between the use of ELA versus bitmap encoding for BSO cubes?
  I would like to hear the experiences of others.

  (we currently have "no compression")

  ^ ^ ^ You're going to be very happy. Very, very happy.

  You can read the database administrator Guide - just search for "comrpession.

  It's here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17236_01/epm.1112/esb_dbag/dstalloc.html

  There are a bunch of updates in custody and the rules concerning the 'better' compression method - it does say I use almost always ELA as the method that seems most effective wrt the disk space. It is logical that this method examines each block and apply the most effective method: pair ELA, bitmap, or Index value. I can't see a difference in calculation between bitmap and ELA.

  How the hell did you in the position of no compression in the first place?

  Kind regards

  Cameron Lackpour

  Published by: CL on July 18, 2011 10:48
  Oops, a couple things:
  (1) after you apply the change of compression in environmental assessments or via MaxL, you must stop and then restart the database for the setting to take effect.
  (2) you must export the database, clear out and reloaded using the new compression method - #1 change affects only new blocks if you could have a mixture of compressed and uncompressed to your db, bliocks which will do nothing for the storage space.
  (3) the only way to really know which method is the most effective is to compare the calculation (remember to write on the disk which could be a little slower than now) and the compression methods is to do it. Try it as a bitmap and note time calc of sampling and file size IND and PAG, so try as ELA and do the same thing.