Dark Thoughts Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I was just playing around and inserted 5 .png images with transparent backgrounds onto an 800 x 600 canvas in PDN. Each image was roughly 200 Kb and when I flattened them, the file was nearly 1000 Kb. Can somebody please explain why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Thoughts Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I was just playing around and inserted 5 .png images with transparent backgrounds onto an 800 x 600 canvas in PDN. Each image was roughly 200 Kb and when I flattened them, the file was nearly 1000 Kb. Can somebody please explain why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Try saving at a lower quality level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Try saving at a lower quality level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Why did you think it will? Quote No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Why did you think it will? Quote No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrule Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 um... 5 x 200=1000? unless memory works differently (which im sure it does... so if im wrong, heh heh ) Quote - My Gallery -Deviant Art-Sublime GFX- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrule Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 um... 5 x 200=1000? unless memory works differently (which im sure it does... so if im wrong, heh heh ) Quote - My Gallery -Deviant Art-Sublime GFX- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 um... 5 x 200=1000? It's flattened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 um... 5 x 200=1000? It's flattened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrule Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 i thought i was wrong. worth a try. Quote - My Gallery -Deviant Art-Sublime GFX- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrule Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 i thought i was wrong. worth a try. Quote - My Gallery -Deviant Art-Sublime GFX- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Thoughts Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Why did you think it will? Because each image has its own Alpha channel (The transparent layer). When the images are expanded, there are 5 transparent layers, but when they are flattened, there is only one. At least that's how I'm thinking it works. Assuming that I am right, 1 Alpha layer shouldn't require as much space as 5 Alpha layers. Or does flattening the images still leave an Alpha layer in between each image? If so, that would explain why the file size didn't decrease. I posted the question because I am hoping to get a better understanding of how Alpha layers work and I thought somebody here might have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Thoughts Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 why the file size didn't decrease when I flattened the image? Why did you think it will? Because each image has its own Alpha channel (The transparent layer). When the images are expanded, there are 5 transparent layers, but when they are flattened, there is only one. At least that's how I'm thinking it works. Assuming that I am right, 1 Alpha layer shouldn't require as much space as 5 Alpha layers. Or does flattening the images still leave an Alpha layer in between each image? If so, that would explain why the file size didn't decrease. I posted the question because I am hoping to get a better understanding of how Alpha layers work and I thought somebody here might have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The transparent areas are all "zeros" and compress out to almost nothing. Storage requirements are not proportional to the number of pixels in all layers. They are proportional to the "complexity" of the layers. With 5 layers and lots of transparency you have "5 simple layers," each one having large regions of easily compressible pixel data. Flattened, you now have "1 complex layer" with no easily compressible areas. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The transparent areas are all "zeros" and compress out to almost nothing. Storage requirements are not proportional to the number of pixels in all layers. They are proportional to the "complexity" of the layers. With 5 layers and lots of transparency you have "5 simple layers," each one having large regions of easily compressible pixel data. Flattened, you now have "1 complex layer" with no easily compressible areas. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Thoughts Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Thanks for the clarification Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Thoughts Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Thanks for the clarification Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.