Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Retina res, big file sizes

Jun 6, 2012 3:14 AM

I am about to build a Retina rendition of our (photography) magazine. It is currently 526MB at1024 rendition and so will be considerably larger than this. I am interested to hear other peoples experience with Retina display and the files sizes of your published mags. Has there been any negative feedback regarding app downloads?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 7:19 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    This is somewhat tangental but maybe you haven't considered it.

     

    Being a promoter of the Social stuff, would love to see a socially shared version of a photo magazine because images and raster folios would great for this. If you stuck with the 1024x768 single rendition, you could share some articles unprotected and target both iPad2 and iPad3 and use the Web Viewer.

     

    If you go to retina with all photos given your existing folio size it would be I think 4 times the size, so over 2gb. My personal experience is that I wouldn't want to have to download that unless I really really wanted the issue badly. I can obviously see why you'd want to try full res though.

     

    I you publish a retina version and want to use the Social feature, at the moment iPad3 users will not be able to share articles that result in Web Viewer being displayed. This is because we can't make the association between the two renditions at the moment and pick the 1024x768 version if there are two renditions. We know this is pretty lame and it's being fixed for future release.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 9:17 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    Have you tried setting your article format to PDF and then publishing a 1024x768 folio only to see how that looks on the new iPad? The text will render nicely and everything else may simply be just fine.

     

    If not, try using PDF for the article format and then creating a 2048x1636 folio. The file size won't be 4x the size of the SD iPad and will likely be acceptable.

     

    Our guidelines for publishing SD and HD folios is at http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/d igitalpublishingsuite/pdfs/dps-ipad3-bestpractice-apr2012.pdf. If you haven't read through it I suggest doing so as it provides our best practices for targeting both device resolutions.

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    The "better for Folio builder to do the upscaling" really applies to overlays and interactive elements, rather than text. If you are planning on doing pan and zoom to enable a deeper look at the images then yes, you'll need to create a 2048 folio using high-res images. There really isn't any way around the increased file size there, unfortunately.

     

    What magazine is it? I'm an avid photographer and would love to take a look

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 7, 2012 7:46 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    I found the best way to produce for retina was using 1024x768 source document with high resolution uncompressed pdf images ( mine were 4000x5000 pixels) then bundling in a 2048x1536 folio. This kept my folio sizes under 1gb. My last one was 700mb, quality was fantastic.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 8:56 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    No, you can't give users the option to download one rendition or the other unless, I suppose, you publish both issues with different names so they aren't actually renditions. Then customers would see both in the store.

     

    1.5GB seems large, and no, your readers likely won't be happy downloading that much content. For the images you have, are you restricting them to the actual size needed to display on the new ipad screen? Or are you going even larger and using the pinch and zoom overlay so people can zoom in and look at even greater detail?

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 9:01 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    My $0.02 is that I would never consider downloading such a thing.

     

     

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 12:28 PM   in reply to Graham Davis

    I think your best bet is to do some experimenting and perhaps have a focus group or two with some impartial eyeballs.

     

     

     

    There’s no way you’re going to sell this with files that huge, so by trying different settings and showing people with nothing invested (let’s face it, we’re all our own biggest critics)you may come up a happy medium.

     

     

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 1:55 PM   in reply to Graham Davis

    HTML5 is certainly the future if not the present of publishing.

     

     

     

    Have you considered laying this out in Dreamweaver or Muse?

     

     

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 4:38 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    I just had a long chat with Colin about this. Graham, can you please provide some more details on how you are including images in your folio? Are they just being placed in? Are they inside overlays? If so, which overlays? Are you using videos?

     

    If you are simply placing an image on the background of your page then the size of your image is irrelevant. It just becomes part of the background of the page, which is always the pixel dimensions of the folio. If you are including it in an overlay then, depending on the overlay, the size of the image may matter a lot.

     

    If you are producing a horizontal and vertical version of your folio you will definitely see an increased file size, and honestly the easiest way to cut your size down for iPad is to only publish one orientation.

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 8:22 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    What is the on-disk size of one of the image files? Each of your object states is a pan and zoom, correct?

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 9:06 AM   in reply to Graham Davis

    I've never tried your suggestion on #18. It should work, but I'd rather you didn't have to do that

     

    What's the file size (not pixel dimensions) of that image on disk? Couple of MB?

     

    Thanks,

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 12:32 PM   in reply to Graham Davis

    Ok, that info helps. For each image in those object states we will rasterize it to the size of the frame on the folio page when you add it to Folio Builder. So even though your source image is 3.7mb, they won't be that big when resampled for the folio.

     

    My guess at this point is it's a combination of two things:

    1) You have a lot of images. There's no way around the file size increase that brings with it, whether you're using DPS or something else. More images means more file size.

    2) Your horizontal and vertical layouts aren't sharing the image assets.

     

    To verify #2 try the following: go to one of your MSOs, change to a different image, and then rotate the device. If the MSO resets then asset sharing isn't happening.

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 1:41 PM   in reply to Neil Enns - Adobe

    Hi Graham, I had to take a step back and re-***** every overlay in my app before we went retina. Guitarist Deluxe was weighing in at around 500mb before retina so I shared the same concerns. However with some small changes and some HTML our current retina app stands at 640mb and we managed to shave off over 200mb off the sd version without loosing any quality or content.

     

    How are you importing your articles into folio builder?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 1:42 PM   in reply to Yellow Christian

    Ases! I meant to say ases not *****!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 1:23 PM   in reply to Graham Davis

    Ok, a few thoughts for you when you return from your R&R:

     

    1) I was mixing up our ability to remember MSO states across rotation with asset sharing. Today it is not possible to create an MSO in horizontal and veritcal orientations and have the image assets shared. This means that by having two orientations, each with MSOs, you're going to get two copies of every image used, including two copies of each button image.

     

    2) Regardless of the source size of your images, InDesign will resample them to fit the size frame you've placed on the page. Even if you're making them 2048x1536, if your frame is smaller than that on the page the images will get downsampled.

     

    3) HTML5 will not necessarily result in smaller file sizes. HTML and PDF folios are essentially the same size in most cases we've seen. The real cost to your folio size is the images, and they will still be that size in HTML. Hosting the images on a server somewhere and loading them via image tags in HTML will certainly make for a smaller folio, but at the cost of offline readability.

     

    Neil

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points