file size

[geogeo]

Is it possible to reduce the exe file size by reducing original image sizes ?

I tried reducing the final display screen size and it didn't seem to affect the exe size much so I guess the exe stores original images (?) Any info on this area would be appreciated.

Geo

[Lin Evans]

Hi Geo,

Yes, executable code stores all the original files along with "instructions" to the computer to create intermediate files on demand. So when you create a zoom or pan or rotate, all the additional images necessary to make the animation transition from the original photo to the end result photo are created on the fly. This is true for executable code. For movie code such as avi, mpeg, mov, dvd, etc., each individual image must be created and stored within the file structure.

There are two ways to decrease the size of the executable file. You can decrease the dimensions of the original while maintaining the aspect ratio or you can increase the compression of the jpg. The advantage of decreasing the dimensions is that you have a true decrease in the load on the video card and RAM. When you increase the compression (smaller number in Photoshop, etc.) you decrease the executable file size but you do not really decrease the load on the video card or RAM, etc., because the jpg expands within memory to the same size as it would be had you used an 8 bit tiff file, etc., there is not a true advantage other than just making the executable file size smaller. It requires less storage space on the hard disk or storage media, but when the show is played each jpg which is under compression expands to the full 8 bit size without compression. The disadvantage, if you use too much compression, is that you sacrifice image quality. It's probably not wise to use a smaller number than 6 for compression or you begin to sacrifice image quality since even when the jpg expands to the full 8 bit size it doesn't magically create the data lost due to compression.

So if you actually change the dimensions - such as from 1200x1600 to 800x600 as an example, you not only save executable file storage space but you also lower video card and RAM loading without undue sacrifice of image quality.

Best regards,

Lin

Is it possible to reduce the exe file size by reducing original image sizes ?

I tried reducing the final display screen size and it didn't seem to affect the exe size much so I guess the exe stores original images (?) Any info on this area would be appreciated.

Geo

[fh1805]

Hi Geo,

A further point that Lin failed to mention (surprisingly for him) is that your image files don't have to be at "as taken" resolution. You should resize your images to suit the final viewing medium. For example: If you are preparing your sequences with the intent that they will be projected via a digital projector then their size need be no larger than the native resolution of the projector. ( My sequences are all resized to 1024x768 because that is the native resolution of my projector). If you are building them simply to view them on your computer monitor then their size need be no larger (in pixels x pixels) than the natve resolution of your monitor.

The only exception to this advice is where you are using the image in a "deep zoom" or long pan. In these two situations you should aim to always have "original" pixels on the display. So, if your original "as taken" images are 3000x2000 pixels and you are building to 1024x768, you could zoom in on one of these in excess of 200% and still have only "original pixels" being displayed.

What you always should strive for is to avoid any "interpolation" of pixels - the addition of pixels by software to make up a shortfall.

regards,

Peter

[geogeo]

Thanks for the detailed response Lin. So far I've been pulling images straight out of my main image folder(s), looks like I'll have to create a special set of reduced size 'originals' in future for P2E use. Agree about compression, not worth sacrificing quality for a small reduction in file size.

cheers

Geo

[geogeo]

Thanks Peter.

I'd already thought that through and the sad fact is that it looks like image reduction has to wait until the AV design is completed otherwise I won't know which images to reduce to, say, 1024x768 and which require more pixels because of zooming. C'est la vie.

Geo

[Barry Beckham]

If you are preparing your sequences with the intent that they will be projected via a digital projector then their size need be no larger than the native resolution of the projector.

Peter, that's not right, I have done this loads of times as I have said before. I regularly play shows created for 1280*1024 monitors on a 1024*768 projector.

Just change the resolution of the playing PC, I do it at practically every demo to be able to run the shows I have only made at larger resolutions than 1024*768.

Its not a problem

[Lin Evans]

Hi Barry,

I think the significant word in Peters suggestion is "need". Yes, you "can" make the images larger than the output size for the projector but it's not "necessary". There is no advantage to be had by making them larger except for ones where deep zooms are used.

Best regards,

Lin

If you are preparing your sequences with the intent that they will be projected via a digital projector then their size need be no larger than the native resolution of the projector.

Peter, that's not right, I have done this loads of times as I have said before. I regularly play shows created for 1280*1024 monitors on a 1024*768 projector.

Just change the resolution of the playing PC, I do it at practically every demo to be able to run the shows I have only made at larger resolutions than 1024*768.

Its not a problem

[fh1805]

Lin,

Thanks for the support on that one. My use of the word "need" was, indeed, very carefully chosen in this instance.

Barry,

I agree that sequences don't have to be scaled down to the 1024x768 constraint of the digital projector. But, if that is the intended final destination, there's no need to make them bigger - unless there is an additional reason such as your desire to build them to 1280x1024 to fit nicely on your monitor. In your particular example, your build size and playback technique work well for what you do - just as my build size and playback technique work well for what I do.

regards,

Peter

[potwnc]

A long time ago - over a year anyway - I made a suggestion that PTE itself reduce the image size as it creates the .exe. For example, many of my images are 1920x1080 (for full HD), but I might want to put out an example .exe at a smaller size so people don't have to download such a large file. Rather than me individually re-sizing all the images for each different size .exe I want, PTE would do it for me. The original images would keep their size but be smaller in the .exe.

Igor said he'd put this on his TODO list, but I guess that's a very long list by now :-)

[Guest Yachtsman1]

A long time ago - over a year anyway - I made a suggestion that PTE itself reduce the image size as it creates the .exe. For example, many of my images are 1920x1080 (for full HD), but I might want to put out an example .exe at a smaller size so people don't have to download such a large file. Rather than me individually re-sizing all the images for each different size .exe I want, PTE would do it for me. The original images would keep their size but be smaller in the .exe.

Igor said he'd put this on his TODO list, but I guess that's a very long list by now :-)

Hi All

If this is done automatically as in Photoshop Elements batch processing, the action needs to differentiate between pictures taken in Portrait and Landscape format or you could end up with some odd looking pictures, I still advocate the KIS principle, leave us something to do with our pictures. PTE would soon become boring if everything was done automatically.

Yachtsman1

[Conflow]

Geo and All,

Yachtsman wrote (extract)..."I still advocate the KIS principle, leave us something to do with our pictures. PTE would

soon become boring if everything was done automatically"....

I completely agree with Yachtsman ~ the proposed 'Auto-Resize Utility' embedded within PTE would further complicate

the Program and run's contra to many current efforts to make the Program simpler and more user friendly particularily

towards the 'Novice' first time user. I know for a fact that there are many excellent (Free) Lossless-Resizers out there

in the AV Industry (I use them) so why complicate PTE any further ??

Just recently Peter Appleton and Jeanne-Pierre came up with transformation 'Techniques' that do a better job than any

Resizer would ever do in the hands of a Novice ~ in my opinion an inbuilt Pte-Resizer is simply asking for trouble which

is totally unwarranted and uncalled for.

I'll say no more...

Brian.Conflow.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Geo and All,

Yachtsman wrote (extract)..."I still advocate the KIS principle, leave us something to do with our pictures. PTE would

soon become boring if everything was done automatically"....

I completely agree with Yachtsman ~ the proposed 'Auto-Resize Utility' embedded within PTE would further complicate

the Program and run's contra to many current efforts to make the Program simpler and more user friendly particularily

towards the 'Novice' first time user. I know for a fact that there are many excellent (Free) Lossless-Resizers out there

in the AV Industry (I use them) so why complicate PTE any further ??

Just recently Peter Appleton and Jeanne-Pierre came up with transformation 'Techniques' that do a better job than any

Resizer would ever do in the hands of a Novice ~ in my opinion an inbuilt Pte-Resizer is simply asking for trouble which

is totally unwarranted and uncalled for.

I'll say no more...

Brian.Conflow.

Photo Razor is a free download but wont size to 1024 x 768. Elements has batch resizing but beware mixing portrait & landscape. I edit most of my pics separately in elements, bit of enhance, bit of zoom in, bit of crop, bit of straighten as most of us do??? It's no hardship to re-size after you've done all that.

Yachtsman1

[Conflow]

PixResizer

Yachtsman,

"PixResizer" will do 1024x768 resizing Formats ~ in fact it goes from 96.pixel all the way to 1200x900 pixel and all

'free-hand' choices of your own making. It will even create a 16:9 'compromise' format from 4:3 format, it is also

a Format Transformer between: Bitmap,Gif,Jpeg,Tiff,Png and others. This is a solid well built Program which gets

better every year and 'to boot' in had the help of the JPeg Industry Association who helped with the origional

Software Code ~ one can't say better than that. We have used it for over 5 years on the most 'tricky' resize jobs.

It also has a very clean 'Uninstaller'.

Link and some Screen-shots below:-

Have fun...

Brian.Conflow.

http://bluefive.pair.com

[Barry Beckham]

Well, you must understand that not everyones prime output is a projector. Mine is my PC screen first, despite the fact that I show probably more on my shows via a projector than most. On my PC screen I get to see PTE shows at their absolute best.

So, I create them to fill my 1280*1024 PC screen, well, within reason of course. I am not a great lover of making my images almost square and like to retain format. Whatever I create, I can show them on my 1024*768 projector.

It doesn't take any extra work to create my show and as you know you can scale down a sequence much easier than scaling up.

[xahu34]

Hello,

many users have IrfanView as their image viewer. Let me remind you that it has appropriate features for resizing/resampling, as well (single application and batch). Restriction: Irfanview does not work with 16-bit images.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich