Jump to content
Michail

*.afphoto files are getting bigger and bigger

Recommended Posts

The reason for that, as I said, will be that your file is already fairly optimal.

 

The way we structure our files means that the bits that change are localised.  So, redundancy only happens where you replace or delete pixel data, and that is also localised to segments within a pixel layer.  In real world situations, and depending upon how you work, it may be that you mainly add to rather than change pixel data.  So, streamlining won't remove much.

 

Sounds to work layer oriented then. Does it also take just duplicated layers into account (does it recognize overlapping layers redundancy)? Meaning, let's say you just duplicate a layer several times and don't alter those layers otherwise (don't change or replace any layers pixel data contents), will it go through each identical layer here or does it recognize that there is a huge redundancy among all these available layers when streamlining?


☛ Affinity Designer 1.7.1 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.7.1 ◆ OSX El Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without giving too much away, we optimise and remove duplicate data where possible.  That includes pixel data, and other stuff.

 

Our files grow in size after any change and save as the main structure of your document is saved every time you do a save.  At the very least, if no other data is changed, the main structure is written again.  Until a streamline happens, old versions of the structure will exist in the file.  When a streamline occurs, the old structure data is removed, leaving just the latest version.

 

The structure data is quite small, however, compared to pixel data, so changes in a document with lots of pixel data, you could make many saves before the amount of old structure data pushes you to the 33% streamlining threshold.  In this situation, the file would grow with each save.  A Save-As will still give a streamlined file.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben thanks for the clarification infos!

 

Sounds to be a slightly similar concept then as is used by backup software, where beside a full initial stored backup then differential and inkremental changes are took into account until the next full backup etc., but here instead on a one data file basis.


☛ Affinity Designer 1.7.1 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.7.1 ◆ OSX El Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I bought AF Photo when it was launched to the market but quickly stopped using it for two reasons: huge, huge, huge file sizes and and no support for IPTC metadata. However, I came back recently wondering if this issues are sorted out in the meantime. Unfortunately I found myself disappointed again.

 

I've read this thread carefully and decided to compare AF Photo against Photoshop CS 6. I made my tests with the following parameters:

  • .CR2 Raw file with 3744 × 5616 pixels straight out of the camera
  • "save history" feature turned of
  • no edits at all, no layers, just opened the file in the respective application (AFP/PS), press "develop" and save in application file format

This is what I found:

 

| Color format | .afphoto | .psd |
|:--|:--|:--|
| 16 Bit RGB | 167,5 MB | 126,3 MB |
| 8 Bit RGB | 167,5 MB | 62,3 MB |
| 8 Bit, saved under new name | 167,5 MB | 62,3 MB |

 

(unfortunately the editor doesn't support markdown - but this should be a table …)

 

I think the table speaks for itself. PS files are considerably smaller compared to .afphoto, reducing to 8 bit does nothing in AFP, but in PS.

 

Ben has tried to be helpful explaining how AFP manages file sizes and how to reduce it possibly but shouldn't an app for professionals just work? "Save under a new name to reduce file size" reminds me off Windows 2000 somehow, especially if it has no effect on file size at all.

 

I would love to have somebody from the AFP staff addressing this thread again explaining if we may hope for improvement. In the meantime I'll stay with Adobe (though I don't like to).

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a hobbyist, but large file sizes simply isn't an issue for me - disk space is cheap and SSDs are fast!  Under what circumstances does it become a deal breaking problem?


AP user, running Win10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, totoff said:

Ben has tried to be helpful explaining how AFP manages file sizes and how to reduce it possibly but shouldn't an app for professionals just work?

I fail to see how large file sizes would somehow prevent an app for professionals (or anybody else) from working. The Affinity apps have been optimized for low real memory use, very high rendering & preview speeds, & quick resaves (due in part to serialization), plus a unique native file format that any app in the suite can open without conversion or loss of functionality.

 

Call me crazy but I think these are just as if not more important than file size. 


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I fail to see how large file sizes would somehow prevent an app for professionals (or anybody else) from working.

 

7 .afphoto files on my machine account for 1.5 GB. Sure, storage is cheap these days. But how to handle this with hundreds of pics and how (and where) to backup? Sorry, it does make a difference – at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, totoff said:

 

7 .afphoto files on my machine account for 1.5 GB. Sure, storage is cheap these days. But how to handle this with hundreds of pics and how (and where) to backup? Sorry, it does make a difference – at least for me.

 

I've wondered if large file sizes has been one of the issues faced in the development of Publisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, totoff said:

 

7 .afphoto files on my machine account for 1.5 GB. Sure, storage is cheap these days. But how to handle this with hundreds of pics and how (and where) to backup? Sorry, it does make a difference – at least for me.

I can store 15,000 files of that size for £100 - quite a few years' worth at the rate I produce keepers :).  Going back to the days when I was working from home and needed a good backup system, I use a program called AISCL and backup all my images to a disk mounted in a USB 3 caddy for rapid removal in case of fire.  


AP user, running Win10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 PSD does very good compression, or whatever it does keeping files really small, for lossless images of that size. Still, I've managed at companies files of GBs of size, even being PSDs, and I don't want to remember some times being forced to handle crazily huge multi layered TIFFs (even with compression ON). Of course, not every machine would handle those. Dunno, I don't see this, and specially in the tests referred, as a show stopper, by any means. Other matters seem more important to introduce or address. As mentioned, storage (except SSDs ) is quite cheap.  I still remember an old tape backup device I had... extremely expensive per MB compared to today's possibilities... 

 

This is an alternative to subscription, and I see not only as a single advantage, it's two: You can actually purchase it and so not "pay a rent", but also, the price could be expensive, in a prohibitive number for any indy, freelancer or hobbyist. But is not. Is at the cost of one month of your Internet/phone connection. Really affordable. People saying they're back to Adobe seems they think they would be to expect all the advantages of one type of thing, and have also all the advantages of the other.


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, totoff said:

"Save under a new name to reduce file size" reminds me off Windows 2000 somehow, especially if it has no effect on file size at all.

 

Not sure if Ben really meant a new name as the only option. He said a "save as" . Anyone let me know if I'm wrong, also as this could be an interesting matter: I think I understood that it streamlines it just by doing a "save as", but even with the same name, which would be an overwrite, not duplicating the file with another name, exactly the same thing/result than when you hit fast your ctrl + s or hit the save option. It just will show the file dialog window and you'd just hit intro (or however it's done in Macs, I don't remember now, a few years till I used last) twice. If it is so, IMO is not a matter/need to be doing it constantly, but from time to time, ie, specially once the very final version is to stay untouched for months. 


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stumbled on this thread — having the same issue with very large documents.

I have a simple affinity-doc (376 x 376  pixels) with 29 layers.

Affinity-file is a whopping 796 MB. Exported this to PSD (with layers): 12,8 MB (!)

What's going on?

Schermafbeelding 2018-10-30 om 17.07.49.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2017 at 4:57 PM, James Ritson said:

Michail, raster information in .afphoto documents is stored completely uncompressed. If you're working from raw files, those are developed to 16-bit. 16-bit uncompressed raster information is quite large!

 

If you don't need the extra precision, you can try converting to 8-bit via Document>Colour Format before saving your document. If you've already saved it, try Save As to create a fresh copy with no redundant data.

 

Additionally, when you develop or begin work on an image, an initial Snapshot is created so you can always revert to the original image. This takes up space too, so you may want to delete it. If you go to View>Studio>Snapshots to display the panel, you can then click on the Background snapshot and delete it (the bin icon).

 

Hope that helps.

Sorry for necromancing this post but I wanted to say thank you, my file was around 330MB, went down to 200 after swithing to 8bit color and return to a normal level of 50mb after deleting the snapshot. That is just twice the RAW I edited which is fine for me.

However some lossless compression in .aphoto could be great :D


Current Workstation:
CPU: AMD FX 8350 Wraith - MOBO: Asus Sabertooth 990fx r2.0 - RAM: 8GB DDR3 2133Mhz - GPU: ASUS AMD Radeon R7 250 1GB
SSD: Samsung Evo 850 256GB - HDD: 2x WD Black 640GB - PSU: XFX TS450 - OS: Win10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, >|< said:

Affinity apps definitely use lossless compression to store Pixel Layers and Pixel Masks.

 

and the developed and "flattened" file is twice the size of the RAW? RAW files use bigger compression or something?


Current Workstation:
CPU: AMD FX 8350 Wraith - MOBO: Asus Sabertooth 990fx r2.0 - RAM: 8GB DDR3 2133Mhz - GPU: ASUS AMD Radeon R7 250 1GB
SSD: Samsung Evo 850 256GB - HDD: 2x WD Black 640GB - PSU: XFX TS450 - OS: Win10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nitro912gr said:

RAW files use bigger compression or something?

Firstly, RAW files do not contain full pixel color information - they must be calculated, when developed him.


Affinity Store: Designer 1.7.3.481, Photo 1.7.3.481, Publisher 1.7.3.481.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1903, Build 18362.418.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that so? I though that RAW files contain a lot more information like a digital negative than a flatten picture.

Anyway I don't want to derail the topic on what a RAW is and how it works :P


Current Workstation:
CPU: AMD FX 8350 Wraith - MOBO: Asus Sabertooth 990fx r2.0 - RAM: 8GB DDR3 2133Mhz - GPU: ASUS AMD Radeon R7 250 1GB
SSD: Samsung Evo 850 256GB - HDD: 2x WD Black 640GB - PSU: XFX TS450 - OS: Win10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, nitro912gr said:

Is that so? I though that RAW files contain a lot more information like a digital negative than a flatten picture.

Anyway I don't want to derail the topic on what a RAW is and how it works :P

RAWs do, but you really can't compare them to Bitmaps.

They contain raw sensor data that can be far better compressed - similar to an text file.

The RAW converter performs an debayering making it to a Bitmap.

All RAW converters perform different on this task. Usually the vendors one is the best for that job. Despite lacking some options Canon DPP does the best job developing an CR2 in regards of detail preservation.

But you may use third party RAW converters in case your vendor does not offer something suitable. This is the case with Panasonic cameras or DJI drones for example. Here I recommend DxO Optics Pro.

For Canon and Nikon I recommend to go with the vendors tools.

I was not satisfied with the result of APhoto RAW and you also can't save your settings in a sidecar file.


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia RTX 2080
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.471, Affinity Designer 1.7.2.471, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2.471

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, >|< said:

Affinity apps definitely use lossless compression to store Pixel Layers and Pixel Masks.

 

I might add:

This is also true for PSD and GIMP files.

No one would accept a tool that works lossy on the image.

JPG export is always the very last step in a workflow.


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia RTX 2080
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.471, Affinity Designer 1.7.2.471, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2.471

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steps said:

They contain raw sensor data than can be far better compressed - similar to an text file

I doubt more effective conversion. It is more or less about measured analog values, more like poorly compressible binary data.
The difference, however, is that the stored less data values - they contain only the luminous component for each "cell", whereas the "pixel" must contain information about each color component + alpha channel.


Affinity Store: Designer 1.7.3.481, Photo 1.7.3.481, Publisher 1.7.3.481.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1903, Build 18362.418.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pšenda said:

I doubt more effective conversion. It is more or less about measured analog values, more like poorly compressible binary data.

Yeah, one day someone might write down an specification and out of curiousity what exactly happens I may read parts of it. Until then it's guesswork. It's only certain that it is not a bitmap.

4 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

The difference, however, is that the stored less data values - they contain only the luminous component for each "cell", whereas the "pixel" must contain information about each color component + alpha channel.

Indeed.


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia RTX 2080
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.471, Affinity Designer 1.7.2.471, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2.471

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affinity Store: Designer 1.7.3.481, Photo 1.7.3.481, Publisher 1.7.3.481.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1903, Build 18362.418.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

Interesting read. Similar to what I read before and took my knowledge from.

However, specific to the CR2 we don't know how sensor data are represented exactly and what compression is used.

But I heared Canon managed to further improve that in the CR3 format.


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia RTX 2080
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.471, Affinity Designer 1.7.2.471, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2.471

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steps said:

how sensor data are represented exactly

Some formats use floating point, for example DNG specification.

2019-01-17_130614.jpg.5a5ef56bff034d459d0e9c844b01d7b7.jpg


Affinity Store: Designer 1.7.3.481, Photo 1.7.3.481, Publisher 1.7.3.481.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 1903, Build 18362.418.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.