ACDSee – PS very different file sizes

EG
Posted By
Eric Gill
Apr 27, 2005
Views
282
Replies
9
Status
Closed
"Nicolas Tade" wrote in news:3dacu3F6rr4fgU1
@individual.net:

I would like to use PS for that task, but 100k for a photo – just to show someone for a quick view – is not acceptable. What can I do?

Your problem is that you are assuming the scales used by PS and ACDSee are the same. They aren’t. Don’t let it bug you, and move on.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

NH
Nicolas Hoch
Apr 27, 2005
Hi,

for sending some of my pics per eMail, I generated an action that resizes the pics to 39% and exports them "for web" as jpeg with 75% quality. Works fine now, but file sizes are about 100k. When I do the same with ACDSee or XnView, I get file sizes about 50k.
I used bi-linear resizing in all programs, since that is the only method all of them support. Also in none of the smallered files is any exif-information or anything like that.

I would like to use PS for that task, but 100k for a photo – just to show someone for a quick view – is not acceptable. What can I do?

Thank you,
Nico
NH
Nicolas Hoch
Apr 27, 2005
Your problem is that you are assuming the scales used by PS and ACDSee are the same. They aren’t. Don’t let it bug you, and move on.

Are you sure, that this is the problem?
Then I could find an equivalent number on the PS-scale by optimizing for the same file size as the ACDSee output? This should be auf 60. Would I at least then get the same quality as with 75% in ACDSee?

Thanks again,
Nico
H
Hecate
Apr 27, 2005
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:21:58 +0100, "Nicolas Tade" wrote:

Your problem is that you are assuming the scales used by PS and ACDSee are the same. They aren’t. Don’t let it bug you, and move on.

Are you sure, that this is the problem?

Yes, he’s sure. Guess what, so am I. Disregard whatever the quality settings are – they are DIFFERENT FOR EVERY PROGRAM.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
EG
Eric Gill
Apr 27, 2005
"Nicolas Tade" wrote in
news::

Are you sure, that this is the problem?

As Hecate notes, I sure am.

No one ever established a standard that any of the software makers recognized.

Then I could find an equivalent number on the PS-scale by optimizing for the same file size as the ACDSee output? This should be auf 60.

Try it.

Would I at least then get the same quality as with 75% in ACDSee?

It should be close. Experiment. It’s the only way to find out.
B
Brian
Apr 28, 2005
Eric Gill wrote:
"Nicolas Tade" wrote in
news::

Are you sure, that this is the problem?

As Hecate notes, I sure am.

No one ever established a standard that any of the software makers recognized.

Then I could find an equivalent number on the PS-scale by optimizing for the same file size as the ACDSee output? This should be auf 60.

Try it.

Would I at least then get the same quality as with 75% in ACDSee?

It should be close. Experiment. It’s the only way to find out.
On the topic of jpeg compression, I have a similar dilemma. I cannot get a small (desired size) image out of PS or that programme on the other side (you know the one). To get anything of "decent" quality gives a file that is too large. If I use my screen capture programme (we won’t mention which one) it saves a jpg image at the same quality of the image I see on the screen at literally 1/3 the file size of anything I can save to, at ANY quality. So how is it managing that?
What I meant by that last sentence was….say you have a small image like 400 x 300 pixels. It very quickly deteriorates in jpg as you move the slider towards the smaller file size direction. But let’s say you do that anyway and get a blurry crap image at a certain file size. I can "capture" the original image to a jpeg with a Screen Capture utility and the file is the same quality it appeared on the screen to start with at a far smaller file size than the crap image we just saved using conventional methods. Very strange.

Regards,
Brian.
CF
Craig Flory
Apr 28, 2005
I think 100 Kb is a very small file size. And I’d rather give a file from Photoshop anytime.
Even when I was on dial-up, 100 kb was not a problem to open. Now almost everyone
is on broadband so 100 kb is miniscule. I wouldn’t worry about it.Given that most files
I send for printing to the color lab are at least a meg I can’t see a problem.

Craig Flory
EG
Eric Gill
Apr 28, 2005
Brian wrote in news:4270B572.1050704
@NotHere.com.au:

Eric Gill wrote:
"Nicolas Tade" wrote in
news::

Are you sure, that this is the problem?

As Hecate notes, I sure am.

No one ever established a standard that any of the software makers recognized.

Then I could find an equivalent number on the PS-scale by optimizing for the same file size as the ACDSee output? This should be auf 60.

Try it.

Would I at least then get the same quality as with 75% in ACDSee?

It should be close. Experiment. It’s the only way to find out.
On the topic of jpeg compression, I have a similar dilemma. I cannot
get
a small (desired size) image out of PS or that programme on the other side (you know the one). To get anything of "decent" quality gives a file that is too large. If I use my screen capture programme (we won’t mention which one) it saves a jpg image at the same quality of the
image
I see on the screen at literally 1/3 the file size of anything I can save to, at ANY quality. So how is it managing that?

My first guess is your screen captures have been with a more limited pallette (i.e., the image contains fewer colors.)

One of the earlier "optimization" methods for jpegs was to convert them to indexed color, the fewest you could possibly get away with. I never liked the results. But a general screen capture (desktop, menus, windows) is going to have fewer colors by it’s nature.

Then there is the fact that some apps are better at jpeg optimization than others.

<snip>
JF
Jon Fredrik Stuestoel
Apr 28, 2005
"Brian" wrote in message

On the topic of jpeg compression, I have a similar dilemma. I cannot get a small (desired size) image out of PS or that programme on the other side (you know the one). To get anything of "decent" quality gives a file that is too large. If I use my screen capture programme (we won’t mention which one) it saves a jpg image at the same quality of the image I see on the screen at literally 1/3 the file size of anything I can save to, at ANY quality. So how is it managing that?
What I meant by that last sentence was….say you have a small image like 400 x 300 pixels. It very quickly deteriorates in jpg as you move the slider towards the smaller file size direction. But let’s say you do that anyway and get a blurry crap image at a certain file size. I can "capture" the original image to a jpeg with a Screen Capture utility and the file is the same quality it appeared on the screen to start with at a far smaller file size than the crap image we just saved using conventional methods. Very strange.

Do you use the "Save for web"-feature?

If not, try it. Especially for small images, you’ll save much in file size from not including all meta information. This information is generally not included in a screenshot.

Regards,

Jon Fredrik Stuestol
T
Tacit
Apr 29, 2005
In article ,
Brian wrote:

On the topic of jpeg compression, I have a similar dilemma. I cannot get a small (desired size) image out of PS or that programme on the other side (you know the one). To get anything of "decent" quality gives a file that is too large. If I use my screen capture programme (we won’t mention which one) it saves a jpg image at the same quality of the image I see on the screen at literally 1/3 the file size of anything I can save to, at ANY quality. So how is it managing that?

Are you using the "Save As" or the "Save for Web’ command when you are saving your JPEG?

By default, the ‘Save As" command includes extra information in your files. This extra information may include an ICC color profile, a thumbnail, a custom icon, and so on.

You have two choices:

1. Instruct Photoshop not to save any extra information in the file; or

2. Use the Save for Web command, which does not include this extra information in the file.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections