Image size

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 8 months ago
I have a number of colleagues that use SnagIt to take screen shots of online applications.  Recently 8 of us all ran a test where we took the same screen shot of the same online application and then pasted it directly into a Word file.  The file size varied from 460Kb to 1443Kb.  We all have the same screen resolution settings.  I just don't understand why there was such a variance in file size?
Photo of Tanya

Tanya

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 8 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Rick Grunwald

Rick Grunwald

  • 1418 Posts
  • 979 Reply Likes
Interesting question. I wouldn't think there would much difference but things like screen size and color settings could account for it. Also is one person grabbing a slightly bigger screen area?
Where are you getting your sizes? If you  just save the captures what kind of file sizes are you getting

There are a lot of variables and some not so obvious, but that is where I would start looking
Photo of Ed Covney

Ed Covney

  • 340 Posts
  • 223 Reply Likes
I wouldn't worry much about size especially when there's an HTML involved. 

But why? First, let's make sure you're using the same instruments to measure: Put each pic on the associated desktop. (Windows 10) - rt-click on the pic icon, then left-click properties, the "General" tab lists the file sizes windows logged.  Now go to the details tab and compare image dimensions and bit depth. Are there differences here?

Now for 8 PCs, can you log the files size, dimensions, and bit depth, and post here? I think Rick and I would both like to know.
Photo of Tanya

Tanya

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Ok - i’ll go back to my colleagues and ask them to send me file size, dimension and bit depth. This might take a day or two!
Photo of Jeff Davies

Jeff Davies

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
In my experience there is normally a noticeable difference in file size dependent on whether the image was either Inserted OR Pasted into a Word Document.

Pasting the image I believe carries a lot of invisible code which explains the larger file size. Hope this helps a little.
Photo of JL1

JL1

  • 286 Posts
  • 127 Reply Likes
Interesting eye-opener, thanks.
Photo of Tanya

Tanya

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The difference in the screen area was minimal but perhaps some of my colleagues paste directly from the clipboard and others opened the Snagit Editor before they pasted. Would that have an impact? No image editing was carried out. We are using a mixture of version 12 and 13.

I haven’t thought about colour settings. Are you referring to the settings on the laptop or in Snagit?

I want to standardise the use of Snagit to prevent unnecessarily large file sizes.

Thanks
Photo of Ed Covney

Ed Covney

  • 330 Posts
  • 214 Reply Likes
" . .  some of my colleagues paste directly from the clipboard and others opened the Snagit Editor before they pasted. Would that have an impact? "
I suspect so.

". .  I want to standardise the use of Snagit to prevent unnecessarily large file sizes. " Always a great idea! Sounds like you manage the office?

Want another great idea? Register each PC to each printer. I use this graphic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ii_yNJm0guzf3cLksht912ekeF7-BPP3/view?usp=sharing

Put the graphic on everyone's desktop and snag 'em. Red-line to Red-line, top to bottom and left to right should snag at 768 x 768  or  769 x 769   pixels. If printer to each printer, it should be 8" x 8", allow maybe a 1/6" error in each direction.  If each monitor and each printer doesn't produce the expected results, you may be pre-explaining potential problems ahead. Is Bob's print out, out-of-whack? He may need an updated driver, either his video card or print driver or both. Here's the exact same png file listed above, this time uploaded directly:





Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5500 Posts
  • 2591 Reply Likes
I'm also wondering if the Windows display scaling could be at play with this.