Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Linked resources stil inflate document filesize.

Recommended Posts

Having the new linked resources feature with the resource manager is a very good step in the right direction. But this stil does not solve the problem i mentioned in earlier posts regarding the huge document filesizes that Affinity Designer and Publisher produce. It seems that as in AD the linked images in AP are stil stored within the document. And they stil seem to be stored uncompressed.

Furthermore the filesize is unpredictable. Sometimes after deleting a picture frame with a linked image completely from the document, the filesize drops sigificant. Sometimes it gets even higher!? Overall the filesize increases significant with every single image that is added.

I expected this issue to be solved with the linked resource, but a closer look tells us: it is not.

I placed these two well known sample JPGs in a new blank AP document. As you can see in the Resource Manager both are linked and they are about 380 KB and 780 KB in original filesize.


After saving the AP document the overall document filesize results in round about 3.7 Megabyte! And this is caused by only two midres images (1024 x 768 px). Imagine a poduct brochure with hundreds of images in print resolution. The document filesize will be some hundred Megabyte or more.

But things get even worse after using the exact same linked image with two picture frames. I would expect, that at least both frames internally reference the same image data. But instead after saving the document the document filesize has increased to now 5 Megabyte!



I don't know the reason for this stategy - not in Affinity Designer and especially not in Publisher. The latter is a tool by nature that has to deal with lots of external resources in one document. It's main purpose is to bring text and image together in a layout. Not to collect - and not to produce even more - redundant data.

I am absolutely convinced that, like me, the majority of professional users keep a close eye on their computer resources. And it does matter when  a single layout document is bigger than the sum of all its contained images. At the latest when it comes to archiving and backup.

The strategy might be as easy as this (compare it to InDesign or Quark):

1) linked resources might only stored as rough lowres previews within the document. When opening the document the lowres version is displayed which will speedup loading. Then you can decide whether or not to show the layout in full highres resolution in the viewport. The option to switch between rough layout preview and highres design preview will always meet the needs of texters AND designers because both have different priorities when working with layout tool like Publisher.

2) embeded images will be stored within the document. But please, please as references to the embeded original data stream (jpg, tiff, etc.) - not as uncompressed bitmap which drastically increases the document filesize.

I know this needs a huge amount of infrastructure behind the sceenes. But with the introduction of the linked resources you have the chance o build this the right way right from the start. The next step is as background process, that watches for changes in the linked resources and displays notifications about external changes (e.g. like the yellow warn icons in InDesign, that inform about external updates).


Now sorry for saying it that clear.

I really appreciate your efforts to provide clever tools (Photo, Designer and Publisher) with a professional, nice and clean UX and some cool features where even the f...... Adobe guys should take an example of.

And i don't expect a "smaller" application with a "lower price" to have the full featureset like an "expensive one" with a "high price" (InDesign, QuarkXPress).

The question is - should Affiity Publisher be a professional tool that is somehow comparable to these "top dogs". Or is it just a "nice small" tool for "low budgets"?

E.g. CorelDraw is out now for almost 30 years. That was my first layout software I had to struggle with in the early 90's. If you look at it now, it's UX is nicer. But under the hood lot's of stuff is done the same way as 25 years ago - no really huge evolution. You can use it professionally if you have to. But it's not comparable at all to an actual version of Affinity Designer or Photo which offers modern techniques and workflow approaches. But the Corel Suite is still sold for actual 594,00 €. Not exactly cheap for a set of software which is not matured in the best manner.

As far as I'm concerned, I was and I am always willing to pay a good, reasonable price for a good software tool. If it makes my daily work as a designer (craftsman) really easier and faster it will always be a good invest.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI 4dimage

This is known to us, although the original file is linked we store extra copies and information that is used for various rendering elements within the app. It's these extra that are contributing to the file size I'm afraid. The team are working on trying to reduce this though


Serif Europe Ltd - Check the latest news at www.affinity.serif.com

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
Sign in to follow this