I admit that I suffer from obsessing about "file storage size". I am guilty of deleting too many files from my archives in an attempt to constantly monitor "free space" on my drives. I realize this is a result of starting my adventure with computers back in the days of the very first IBM PC when everything had to fit on a floppy. Even though I have almost a tertabyte of file storage memory, I can't escape the irrational quest to reduce storage space in use.
I am really puzzled by the differences in file size that I see in the templates posted here. I looked at six of the most recent templates posted here. Every one of them is 12 x 12 @ 300ppi and has a pixel dimension of 37.1MB.
The number of layers in the templates doesn't seem to make a difference. Consider these 3 which each have 9 layers:
#128 -- file size 3.70 MB
#127 -- file size 60.5 MB
#125 -- file size 3.98 MB
These both have 8 layers:
#126 -- file size 11.5 MB
#124 -- file size 79.6 MB
#121 has 14 layers and a file size of 55.0 MB
I am at a loss to try to understand what causes three of these to be such monster files when the others are relatively byte misers.
Rusty
I am really puzzled by the differences in file size that I see in the templates posted here. I looked at six of the most recent templates posted here. Every one of them is 12 x 12 @ 300ppi and has a pixel dimension of 37.1MB.
The number of layers in the templates doesn't seem to make a difference. Consider these 3 which each have 9 layers:
#128 -- file size 3.70 MB
#127 -- file size 60.5 MB
#125 -- file size 3.98 MB
These both have 8 layers:
#126 -- file size 11.5 MB
#124 -- file size 79.6 MB
#121 has 14 layers and a file size of 55.0 MB
I am at a loss to try to understand what causes three of these to be such monster files when the others are relatively byte misers.
Rusty