Microsoft Publisher - Publisher 2003 Huge file size

Author

Publisher 2003 Huge file size

Scott

2007-05-17, 6:17 pm

Scott wrote:
> Created a web page using Publisher 2003.
> 19 total pages with pictures, some as big as 2mb.
> Total file size has ballooned to 650 mb. All pictures reduced to
> 96kb. Action only reduced file size by 17 mb.
> Systematically copied the file and deleted a page at a time--final
> result was a file with NO pages, but was 625 MB--
> Any clues why a Publisher 2003 file would do this?
> I read about publisher 2000 and 2002 problems but ohter posts claim
> this is corrected in 2003. File is essentially unworkable and months
> of work has been wasted.

DavidF

2007-05-17, 6:17 pm

Scott,

You haven't wasted your time, but you could have saved some time if you had
noticed how big your file was getting as you built it, and posted this
question sooner.

First of all a graphics intensive site is always going to be larger than a
text intensive site...that is just a fact. And if you insert lots of 2+ meg
image files into your Pub doc, it is going to get pretty big. However, you
can reduce the file size significantly. There are two ways...the easiest,
and the best.

The easiest is to compress the graphics as you have them now inserted.
Reference: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web
pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx

This will at least help compress your images and reduce your file size. The
smaller the image file sizes the smaller your Pub file and the smaller the
image files that are uploaded to your webhost....and ultimately the faster
the images will load when viewed.

The best way is to resize and optimize your images for the web before you
insert them into Publisher, using an image editing program. I like Adobe
Photoshop Elements for the dollar, but you can download Irfanview and use it
for free if you want. http://irfanview.com/

Go to the first image on the first page, and make note of the size of the
picture window. Assuming that you inserted your image and then sized the
picture window to be 400 pixels wide. Open Irfanview, and the original image
that you inserted. Resize the image to 400 pixels wide, at 72 ppi or even
96, and perhaps around 30% compression. Save the new resized, and web
optimized image. Then go back to your Pub file and change the original image
for the new one. Then select the picture window...just click on the image >
Format > Picture > Size Tab and make sure the scale is at 100%. Do a web
page preview, and if the image looks ok, then go to the next image and do
the same thing. The goal here is to reduce the original 2272 X 1704, 2+ meg
image file down to a 400 pixel wide image that will probably be around 30
kb.

DavidF

"Scott" <Scott@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:58E40736-6335-4EC8-8844-2924C18BC265@microsoft.com...
> Scott wrote:
>

Brucels

2007-05-17, 6:17 pm

David,

I think you have given very accurate and useful directions. However, I don't
think it's necessary to worry about the image resolution ("72 ppi or or even
96"), since that would only be significant if you were sizing in some other
units of measure (inches, centimeters, etc.), rather than pixels, as you
suggest. Just my opinion, thinking of ways to keep it simple.

Bruce

"DavidF" wrote:

> Resize the image to 400 pixels wide, at 72 ppi or even
> 96, and perhaps around 30% compression.

Mike Koewler

2007-05-17, 6:17 pm

Bruce,

The resolution of the image is important, very important. One that has a
resolution of 300 dpi (or ppi) is going to much larger than one of 96 dpi.

Mike

Brucels wrote:[color=darkred]
> David,
>
> I think you have given very accurate and useful directions. However, I don't
> think it's necessary to worry about the image resolution ("72 ppi or or even
> 96"), since that would only be significant if you were sizing in some other
> units of measure (inches, centimeters, etc.), rather than pixels, as you
> suggest. Just my opinion, thinking of ways to keep it simple.
>
> Bruce
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>
>

Brucels

2007-05-18, 6:17 pm

Mike,

I agree with you that the file size of a (for instance) 4" x 6" image will
be much larger at 300 dpi/ppi than at 96 dpi/ppi. However, sizing the image
at 400 PIXELS wide (as originally suggested) is an absolute measurement, so
image resolution is a non-consideration. I just tried this in PhotoShop, and
I think I am correct in my statement.

Bruce

"Mike Koewler" wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> The resolution of the image is important, very important. One that has a
> resolution of 300 dpi (or ppi) is going to much larger than one of 96 dpi.
>
> Mike
>
> Brucels wrote:
>

DavidF

2007-05-18, 10:16 pm

Bruce,

You are basically correct....and so is Mike...I think. However, the Pub 2003
html coding engine is a bit strange in how it handles images. If you insert
a 400 pixel wide image that is at 300 ppi, you can not scale it to 100%. And
if you don't scale the image to 100%, Publisher will make at least two
copies of the image when you produce the html code, which increases the file
size, and increases the loading time. If you resample the image to 96 ppi
before sizing to 400 pixels wide, then you can scale it a 100%, you get one
copy, and the quality of the final image viewed in IE is superior and faster
loading.

Please don't ask me the why for of all this. I have done a lot of testing,
and know that it has to do with the VML in Pub 2003+, but I don't understand
the real reasons for this. It is just an observation from the tests I have
done. Pub 2000 (no VML) behaves differently and supposedly Pub 2007 does
too...or at least that was what I was led to believe in the beta testing. I
haven't spent much time testing it since the final version was released, and
the beta version acted much as 2003.

I think in general you are correct, but in terms of how Publisher 2003
produces images for the web, I THINK it is better to also reduce the image
to 96 ppi. But I could be wrong...;-)

Thanks for the comments though. As I said, I don't truly understand how
Publisher processes the images, and you have given me more to think about.
Perhaps one of these days it will become more clear...

DavidF

"Brucels" <Brucels@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AD82B352-2D6D-4342-B349-B16759C922EB@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Mike,
>
> I agree with you that the file size of a (for instance) 4" x 6" image will
> be much larger at 300 dpi/ppi than at 96 dpi/ppi. However, sizing the
> image
> at 400 PIXELS wide (as originally suggested) is an absolute measurement,
> so
> image resolution is a non-consideration. I just tried this in PhotoShop,
> and
> I think I am correct in my statement.
>
> Bruce
>
> "Mike Koewler" wrote:
>