TIP: Size of plugins using TIF Images
Posted: Tue, 25th Jun 2002, 10:06am
Post 1 of 6
I have just about every plug in installed (hehe) and noticed that AlamDV is a whopping 800 or so MB at the moment. I did a look through the image folders and found several of the plugins had huge TIF files of sizes of 1MB and upwards.
I'm not sure if people are aware but there are only a few paint programs around that allow TIF files to be compressed as they are exported.
I use Paintshop Pro 7. I was able to reduce my AlamDV folder down by nearly 100MB by going through a converting the current TIF files to compressed TIF files (eg Starfirelds .... were 16.1MB each ... now around 300kb).
Some files don't compress all that well and files with heaps of images can still be large zip files to download, but at least using compressed TIF files helps.
Just thought it was worth mentioning for all plugin makers or budding plugin makers.
Posted: Tue, 25th Jun 2002, 10:16am
Post 2 of 6
I heard this argument a couple of times on the chatroom. Personally I agree its nicer to have the tiff compressed on disk, because uncompressed they can take up a lot of room. Some of the arguments against this that Ive heard are
1) Compressed tiffs dont zip well, and can produce bigger files.
Most compressed tiffs use LZW compression which is the same as what zip files use. So theorectically when you zip them you cant compress them and the file ends up bigger because it has the same data plus the zip header on it (although the tiff headers and script files will get compressed). In practice id be suprised if there was anymore than a few KB difference between zipped uncompressed tiffs and zipped compressed tiffs.
2) Images load faster.
I dont notice any difference in loading times between compressed and uncompressed tiffs. Im not sure how much AlamDV holds in memory after its read the image, but I wouldnt have thought this would have a noticible impact.
Also remember LZW is a lossless compression, so either way you get the exact same quality.
Posted: Tue, 25th Jun 2002, 10:20am
Post 3 of 6
Some good points there Malone ... the difference though is in the hard drive space used once the zips are extracted - and at the end of the day HDD space is usually something we all want more of.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jun 2002, 7:10pm
Post 4 of 6
Of course malone has a good point
Malone helped me out sine 5465656554 days ago
Posted: Sun, 30th Jun 2002, 12:31am
Post 5 of 6
I realized that the size of the image also changes the size too.
I was trying to make a Droid Command Ship plugin and the images were around 420 X 560 (I think). When I created the zip file and submitted it to the alamdv server, my connection had a timeout. I then looked at the zip file and realized it was 4.86MB in file size. I thought, how can this be? My Naboo StarFighter plugin was only 286.6Kbs and it had 11 variations. My Droid command Plugin only had 4. I had then realized that the size of the image effects the file size.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jun 2002, 10:47am
Post 6 of 6
Yes, there is a significant difference between a 320 x 240 image and a 640 x 480 size image. I prefer to make the ship plugins at 640 x 480 though most movies are in 320 x 240 res. The reason being that this gives higher definition in the final movie, so the size of the zipped plug in is a little more, though I can usually keep it to around 1 MB zipped.
For interest sake, a friend of mine suggested using TGA files as they are by far compressed the greatest ... but plugger and alamdv do not seem to like TGA.