Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Photos in Word 2016 Larger Than in Word 2010

    I self-publish a book (a diary of my family’s activities for that year) each Christmas that includes photos embedded in the text. I’ve published almost 20 books this way. I used Word 2010 for the past five or six years, and this year upgraded to a new Win10 Alienware and Office 2016.

    I just realized that the size of my document for this year will be 4 or 5 times as large as it was in previous years. The obvious suspect are the pictures that I include. I have about the same number as in the past, so the size of the photos seems a likely source of the extra size.

    I compress all of my photos to “Use Default Resolution” as I always have. That default is set to 220 in Advance Settings as it was under Word 2010. Thus, I'm assuming that they should all be consuming the same amount of storage. Thus, the only real variable is that I moved from Word 2010 to Word 2016.

    What am I missing? Why would this new document be so much larger? Has anyone else seen this phenomenon?

    Thanks.

    WSC3

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts
    Inserting the pictures at a different size would increase the file size; Word 2016 may also compress the pictures less for a given resolution also.
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  3. #3
    5 Star Lounger Lugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    627
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 77 Times in 68 Posts
    If you have this year's pics and last year's in a couple of folders on your computer, you can quickly compare their average file sizes before they get into Word. That will narrow the list of suspects.

    Is your output format DOCX? That's usually the smallest format. What format do you publish in--epub, paper, PDF, ...?

    There is more to the filesize of an image than resolution. DPI is for print quality, specifying how many dots of ink or toner should be laid down by the printer on every inch of paper. It's not relevant for electronic storage or output. The very similar PPI [pixels per inch] is relevant, but more useful to describe output screens than docs or images to be displayed.

    Are this year's files uncompressed compared to previous years?
    Are they a diff format--eg BMP files are much larger than JPG?
    Has color depth changed this year, from eg 16 bit to 32 bit?
    Are this year's simply larger photos--eg 4,000x2,500 vs 1,000x2,000 last year?
    Is there a lot more extra info [EXIF metadata] stored in this year's pics?
    Could the picture editor program be storing a lot of extra info [eg multiple undo] this year?
    Are you sure this year's pics aren't still layered from the image editing software?

    I've been making books with images in Word 2016 for a couple of months, and haven't seen any increase in file sizes compared to Word 2013.
    Lugh.
    ~
    Windows 10 Pro x64 1607; Office 2016 (365 Home) x32; Win Defender, MBAM Pro

    ASRock H97 Anniversary; Xeon E3-1231V3 (like i7)
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970; 12GB Crucial DDR3 1600
    Logitech MX Master mouse; Roccat Isku kb

  4. #4
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My pictures are all about the same file size, typically somewhere between 1.5mb and 2.5mb. I bought a new camera over two years ago, but that didn’t make any difference between last year’s book and the previous year’s. They were very close.
    All my pictures are jpg’s.
    The photo dimensions (in Explorer) do vary from picture to picture, but they’re all within some similar range. I didn’t change any camera settings, so there’s no reason to suspect they would be.

    I don’t use layering much, so I know that’s not it.

    I am surprised that when I compress a photo that its original size would make a difference in the compressed size. I would think that conformity would be a goal of compression.

    My end of year book size from last year was 127mb. This year’s is already 367mb and I still have a few months to go.

    My output at this point is DOCX. I publish in PDF.

    As I noted, the only things that changed this year are my computer, Word version, and OS.

    I worry that the Word doc will become unwieldy as its size increases. Any thoughts on this?

    Thanks.

    WSC3

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WSC3 View Post
    I am surprised that when I compress a photo that its original size would make a difference in the compressed size. I would think that conformity would be a goal of compression.
    Two jpg files having the same horizontal & vertical pixel counts can have quite different file sizes, depending on the variability of the data in the image. Naturally, the compressed (i.e. downsampled) versions of these files would likewise differ in size. What I was referring to, though, is a possible change in the compression algorithm used by Word 2016, which could mean the images are compressed less so that more detail is retained.
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  6. #6
    5 Star Lounger Lugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    627
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 77 Times in 68 Posts
    Check the settings in "Image Size and Quality" in File > Options > Advanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by WSC3 View Post
    I worry that the Word doc will become unwieldy as its size increases. Any thoughts on this?
    Also in in File > Options > Advanced, in "Show document content" ticking "Show picture placeholders" should help with scroll speed.
    Lugh.
    ~
    Windows 10 Pro x64 1607; Office 2016 (365 Home) x32; Win Defender, MBAM Pro

    ASRock H97 Anniversary; Xeon E3-1231V3 (like i7)
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970; 12GB Crucial DDR3 1600
    Logitech MX Master mouse; Roccat Isku kb

  7. #7
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Lugh: Image Size and Quality: 220ppi.

  8. #8
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I've had a chance to get back to this issue. I just did some measurements. My document was 393.606MB. I inserted one picture 2.77MB in size and reduced the size to "Default Resolution" as I indicated at the top. I save the document and the new size is 397.336. The difference is 3.73MB. The document is bigger than the size of the inserted photo!

    Any further thoughts?

    Thanks.

    WSC3

  9. #9
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts
    If the picture was already in the jpg format or another format that uses compression, Word mightn't be able to compress it further, even for 'Default Resolution', plus it would need some overhead for the image's placement, sizing, etc. in the document.
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  10. #10
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    It did compress it further in previous versions of Word, and significantly. That's why Word offers image compression. I've been doing this for years and the size was 4 or 5 times smaller with previous versions of Word. This is the first time I've ever had a doc of this size. Make sense?

  11. #11
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts
    What you're saying doesn't necessarily follow. What Word does with it all depends on what the image is, what dpi it has when inserted into the document (at the scale used in the document - not elsewhere) and what compression settings you have. It is entirely possible in any version of Word that a given image will not be compressed at all; other images might undergo very substantial compression - in the same document with the same compression settings.
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  12. #12
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I understand. But the vast majority of images in my book are from my camera, which has been the same for several years and the files it creates should thus also be somewhat the same, especially in terms of size, dpi, etc. (I did compare a few just to see.) I can see a one-off every now and then that doesn’t compress, but I'm thinking now that none of my pics have compressed this year in my book. Why did pics with similar properties compress so much last year?

    And what particularly surprises me is the 4 – 5 order of magnitude and that's hard to explain.

    And in my brief test, the size of the document got larger than the picture I inserted by almost 50%. How would that happen?

  13. #13
    WS Lounge VIP access-mdb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
    Posts
    1,726
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 156 Times in 149 Posts
    You might find it useful to read the Wikipedia entry on Jpegs. Warning, this can blow your mind. You don't say what camera you have but are you sure you haven't inadvertently changed the quality (how many pixels are used) of each picture? On my camera, the size of the pictures (Mbs) is dependent on what I've taken photographs of - some subjects are more easily compressed than others. It's all a bit of a minefield really as you will see if you read the article. See Effects of JPEG compression towards the bottom of the article.
    Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

  14. #14
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WSC3 View Post
    I can see a one-off every now and then that doesn’t compress, but I'm thinking now that none of my pics have compressed this year in my book. Why did pics with similar properties compress so much last year?

    And what particularly surprises me is the 4 – 5 order of magnitude and that's hard to explain.
    As access-mdb remarked, you may have changed the camera settings. In Word, you may also be using a different compression setting now than in the past.
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  15. #15
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I have Canon EOS 70D. I went back and did a quick look at a couple of pictures, this year vs last. The number of pixels is around 18 - 20 mpixels for both.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •