ACDSee Pro 3

What happened with the sizes of my compressed and uncompress

• 

  Dand
  Member

  I need an explanation.

  I just batch converted two TIFF images (one at the time). One with LZW compression and one without any compression.

  Both are Converted from Nikon D200 compressed NEF (RAW).
  Both uncompressed size is specified to be 57,4 MB according to the file pane in ACDSee.

  After the conversion the uncompressed TIFF is 57,4MB. And that's exactly what I expected it should be.

  File info in the file pane says:

  Type: ACDSee Pro 2.5 TIF image
  Size: 57,4 MB

  Image Attributes says:
  Uncompressed size: 57,4 MB

  But the compressed TIFF turns out to be 74,7 MB - it's bigger than an uncompressed!

  File info in the file pane says:

  Type: ACDSee Pro 2.5 TIF image
  Size: 74,7 MB

  Image Attributes says:
  Uncompressed size: 57,4 MB

  Strange!

  After a batch develop of the two (just lowering the saturation a bit) both change in size. The uncompressed one ends up a little bigger (64,5MB) and the compressed one ends up a nag smaller (73,7 MB). Uncompressed size for both according to image attributes are still 57,4 MB.

  WHAT is actually happening here?
  And why call it an ACDSee Pro2.5 TIF Image. Shouldn't it be Pro 3?

   

  Posted On October 10, 2009 - 03:02 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  Philip Weir
  Member

  It would be interesting to know the file size as reported by Windows. If you are seeing ACDP2.5 as the image type then it's probably because you didn't associate the file type with ACDP3 during install. If you want to chnage this then go to Tools>File Associations> from within ACDP3. Or use Windows control panel for default programs.

   

  Posted On October 10, 2009 - 03:22 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  Dand
  Member

  Philip Weir said:

  If you are seeing ACDP2.5 as the image type then it's probably because you didn't associate the file type with ACDP3 during install.

  Yes! Of cause! Thanks!

  ---

  But regarding to the file size specified by Windows... It's the same as in ACDSee file info...

  And I can also tell you that opening them in Photoshop CS and saving a copy generates almost the same sizes. Uncompressed are still 57.4 but the LZW compressed one (saved in PS with LZW compression as a copy of the ACDSee generated one) shrinks to 72.0...

  Opening and resaving a ACDSee converted TIFF also creates an LZW image that is actually bigger than a non compressed.

  But I found out that it has something to do with the 48bit (16bit/chanel) format. I changed to 8bit in in PS and suddenly I got an uncompressed 24bit (8 bit/chanel) TIFF file that was 28.7 and a compressed one that was 21.1... So finally the compressed one got more compact than the uncompressed...

  Could it be that LZW does not work on 48 bit (16bit/chanel) images... ?
  And why can't I find a way to convert my NEFs to 24bit (8bit/chanel) TIFFs in ACDSee?
  There must be a way!

  Posted On October 10, 2009 - 04:09 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  Philip Weir
  Member

  I've tried converting a 48bit Tiff image that had a file size of 117Mb and uncompressed of 117Mb into a another Tiff file using LZW compression. I got the same results as yourself. i.e. the resultant file is bigger - file size is now 128.7Mb but the uncompressed size is still reported as 117Mb. Maybe you're right about LZW compression.

  I guess if you want to resize your Nefs to 24bits then you could use .jpg as the file format?

  Posted On October 11, 2009 - 10:32 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  Dand
  Member

  Just checked with LightRoom to se what would happen with the filesizes there. But LR didn't even give you the opportunity to ad LZW compresson if you choose 16bit/chanal. So I guess LZW is not compatible with 48bit TIFFs.

  JPEG is of cause a possible workaround. But I don't find it attractive.

  Why do ACDSee offer LZW without a 24bit TIFF choice?

  Would it be hard for ACDSee to ad the choice of 48 or 24 bit TIFFs?

  Posted On October 11, 2009 - 11:52 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.