ACDSee - PS very different file sizes

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Eric Gill, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    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.
    Eric Gill, Apr 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Gill

    Nicolas Tade Guest


    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,
    Nicolas Tade, Apr 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Gill

    Nicolas Tade Guest

    Your problem is that you are assuming the scales used by PS and ACDSee are
    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,
    Nicolas Tade, Apr 27, 2005
  4. Eric Gill

    Hecate Guest

    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...
    Hecate, Apr 27, 2005
  5. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    As Hecate notes, I sure am.

    No one ever established a standard that any of the software makers
    Try it.
    It should be close. Experiment. It's the only way to find out.
    Eric Gill, Apr 28, 2005
  6. Eric Gill

    Brian Guest

    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.

    Brian, Apr 28, 2005
  7. Eric Gill

    Craig Flory Guest

    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
    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

    Craig Flory
    Craig Flory, Apr 28, 2005
  8. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    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.

    Eric Gill, Apr 28, 2005

  9. 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.

    Jon Fredrik Stuestoel, Apr 28, 2005
  10. Eric Gill

    Tacit Guest

    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.
    Tacit, Apr 29, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.