size of index

[mcdull]

I try to burn only the index CD with the maximized picture quality and size setting. And later on I get the size of the index page which is about 560MB. However, after actually processed the image and before starting to burn, AC told me that the capacity of the target medium is too small. My medium is of course CDR with 700MB volume and I have already chosen the correct size in the option.

P.S. I got quite a lot of photo at about 10G.

[MichaelT]

Initially, we can only estimate the size of the index. Only after processing the images do we know the real size of the index. this is because the compression used for the JPEG index images is dependant on the image content and there is no way to accurately predict the size without processing the images. We can only estimate.

So in this case, you will have to make some changes that will make the index smaller.

--less files in the archive set (Slpit into 2 archive sets, perhaps)
--smaller viewing images
--reduce the JPG quality (there is very little difference between 90 and 100 visually, but there is a large file size difference). Even 80 yields very good quality (remember that this is nly a viewing image and that the real image is beinbg archived at full quality.

I hope that this is helpful.

[mcdull]

Ok, initially I get the estimated size of 560MB.. The setting is having the quality = 80
Now I reduce the quality to 75 and the actual size can now be displayed as 640MB. So there are 2 problems.

1. The estimated size are too far away from the actual size. I would expect the actual size of quality 80 will reach more than 800MB.

2. If that is the case (actual size is more than a CDs), the program should tell me the actual size so that I can make the adjustment according to the reported size. Now I have to guess and try and errors. And probably you understand that AC will use quite a lot of time to process all the image before it can work out the actual size, so these try and errors actually waste me lots of time. Thanks for your notice.

[MichaelT]

Off the top of my head, I cannot see a solution for this. Since the size of the index is TOTALLY dependant on the content of your images (because that is what the compression works on), I don;t see a way that this can be avaoided.

The estimates were created by actually compressing thousands of random images at all the compression settings and finding an average based on quality and size settings. We then extracted calcualtions that would allow us to estimate the index size. perhaps we can tweak these, but in the end we cannot predict the content of your images. As I am sure that you know a JPEG of a given size and quality could be 2x different in size or more, based on content.

Having said that we will meet about this internally and see if there is a way to improve the situation.

Thanks for your feedback..