I use IrfanView for resizing images. Some images for web sites I tend to resize to 1024x768 and select 80% for the JPEG quality. I find this works well, but you might be alright with even more compressions, so maybe 70%.
Printable View
I use IrfanView for resizing images. Some images for web sites I tend to resize to 1024x768 and select 80% for the JPEG quality. I find this works well, but you might be alright with even more compressions, so maybe 70%.
80% quality is way too high for web based images. They should be around the 15-30% range.
Some of the photos which I have done using IrfanView's 80 setting have only have file sized of around 150k which seems to be quite reasonable.
Anyway, these days, with our fast internet connections we can quickly download large files so file size doesn't really matter ;)
Apart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
Umm... yes it does! Regardless of internet connection speeds you should always optimise all content making it as small as possible, while balancing its quality. There is no excuse for placing overly large image files online. Just because resources exist, it does not mean you have to try and use them all for something as simple as an image. Especially if you're considered a page layout with a few images. Even on a fast connection a group of very large images could still slow down a page loading.
When compressing images for the internet I always make the compression as high as possible without trying to lose too much quality. The final image doesn't have to be as perfect as the original. This is a big issue for many people, who try to maintain the full quality of an original image. That isn't needed. As long as the final image looks the same without zooming in then it is fine. As I said before, having 20-30% quality is perfectly fine. Pretty much all the box scans on CA are of this quality and look perfectly OK, and due to their complexity most are still 100-200K in size. If I were to make then 80% quality then we would be looking at 1-2MB file sizes which is silly.
You say your images are about 150K, so you have been lucky so far, or the images are very small or have limited colour variation which helps to keep sizes down with jpeg compression.
Oi! I am now back on broadband you know! Was only on 56kack for 2 days. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulesteApart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
BTW, I just remembered something. Only a couple of years ago, wasn't a certain Stephen Coates bashing on about how broadband wasn't needed and dial-up was perfectly fine for everything he needed? :eyebrow:
And floppy disks.
And VCRs.
And audio cassettes.
I was only saying how I didn't need broadband. I do find it useful, but I still don't 'need' it. I am posting this from a dialup connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonOi! I am now back on broadband you know! Was only on 56kack for 2 days. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulesteApart from Harrison. So the bigger the Jpegs the better.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Coates
BTW, I just remembered something. Only a couple of years ago, wasn't a certain Stephen Coates bashing on about how broadband wasn't needed and dial-up was perfectly fine for everything he needed? :eyebrow:
At least with dialup, I won't have to answer anyone elses telephone calls. (About 9 out of 10 calls which we get are not for me, and when they are, it will be something silly - 'are you going to dad's house tonight?' 'will you buy me a newspaper in the morning?')
As for floppy disks - they work great for me still. I'm not saying I won't need other portable storage, but when I do, I have access to zip disks anbd the internet :)
If you're back on BB then whats happened to my screenshots????;)
RetroSteve saying that Dial Up was all he needed?? Nah i don't believe you.:p
Your screenshots are sitting on my HD waiting to be reduced in file size ready to be added to the site! ;)