Load Pictures Quicker

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZootRot
  • Start date Start date
Z

ZootRot

FrontPage 2003

I load a basic site, with a fairly large picture on the home page. The
picture takes an unusually long time to load. Other than reducing the
quality of the pic, are there any other ways to make the pic load quicker?

Thanks.
 
pick the right format- jpg for photos, gif for simple graphics. Png is
also an option but not supported in older browsers. bmp or any other
image format is not

size before upload to display dimensions on the page.

Increase compression rate for jpg. Higher compression does not
necessarily mean lower quality when viewed on the web. Try a few
different rates and pick the smallest image file that is acceptable to
your eye. Nobody expects a printable quality image from the web. Also
when editing jpg, always start with a master copy from which all edits
can be made. Don't edit a previously edited jpg image that has been
saved. Quality will decrease rapidly because of the lossy nature of jpg
format.
 
.... Unless you are always going to a smaller size. i.e. It is OK to resize
from 6 x 4 to 4 x 2.33 and then resize the 4 x 2.33 picture down again to 2 x
1.166. I agree you should never resize upward.
--
Richard M. Perry


..... Also when editing jpg, always start with a master copy from which all
edits
 
Hmmm. That gave me pause for thought but still can't agree with you yet.
I'd buy that logic except when compression rates are factored in. Saving
a compressed image then re-editting it to smaller dimensions won't
replace the pixels lost to compression even if you try to re-compress at
a higher quality. I'm probably missing something here, but I'm still
going to stand by my statement to work only with a master copy. I have
an open mind, though. Convince me ;).
 
Agreed.

Most of the work I do is with bitmaps, and then the final
product is GIFd, JPGd, or PNGd; depending on the application

Q: If I save a JPG at 90% quaulity, and then edit that and
resave again at 90%, is my latest product having a quality
of 81%?

: Don't JPG a JPG....
:
: --
: Murray
: --------------
: MVP FrontPage
:
:
: : > Hmmm. That gave me pause for thought but still can't
agree with you yet.
: > I'd buy that logic except when compression rates are
factored in. Saving a
: > compressed image then re-editting it to smaller
dimensions won't replace
: > the pixels lost to compression even if you try to
re-compress at a higher
: > quality. I'm probably missing something here, but I'm
still going to stand
: > by my statement to work only with a master copy. I have
an open mind,
: > though. Convince me ;).
: >
: > Richard wrote:
: >
: >> ... Unless you are always going to a smaller size.
i.e. It is OK to
: >> resize from 6 x 4 to 4 x 2.33 and then resize the 4 x
2.33 picture down
: >> again to 2 x 1.166. I agree you should never resize
upward.
:
:
 
That's the part of the other poster's statement about downsizing that
had me thinking. I don't think there's a valid answer because of the
complex math behind compression and some rounding that would logically
happen. Seems like the math would start tripping over itself after the
second compression. Better to make one calculation than to make a second
re-calculation based on a less than perfect first calculation. At least
that's what I'm thinking.
 
Yes, more or less. Reducing quality causes information to be lost from the
bitmap. That's why JPG is known as a lossy format.
 
Back
Top