Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

[quentisl@leaves.ihug.com.au (OgO)]

In aus.rail, on 02 Nov 2000, James Brook announced:

>Alan Shaw wrote:
>> 
>> I take a similar approach to that of John Dennis. On my web site
>> currently being developed, I wanted to present my images in a
>> consistent manner. I scan and then re-size all my images so that they
>> are either 575 pixels wide of 450 pixels high, depending on whether
>> they are horizontal or vertical format. At a screen resolution of 800
>> x 600 pixels, this gives a good sized image on the screen plus
>> leaving me room for a short caption. I then compress the images to
>> get a file size less than about 35kb. This gives me what I think is
>> an acceptable balance of images size and quality. 
>
>35kb is extremely low quality and they are useless for anything other
>than viewing on the screen. Try stretching those to a Windoze
>background. You would have a blurry image at 800x600 and don't even
>think about it at 1024x748!
>

A web-page is primarily designed to be viewed on the screen, and therefore 
a 35kb image is fine.  Have it linked to a 300kb image for those who want 
to download it and make it a background or print it or whatever.

>If you have a decent connection (56k dial-up or higher) you won't have
>any significant problems downloading a 300kb or less image. Unless
>there is significant congestion, approximately 2 minutes is a worst
>case scenario and 1 minute or less is the average.
>

I'm glad you can be bothered waiting that long for pages to load, most 
people can't, which is exactly why you have the 35kb image on the page, 
linked to the bigger, higher quality one, for those who need it.

I must constantly have one of these congested connections as it takes me a 
couple of minutes sometimes to download the 50kb image.  Ok I only have a 
33.6 kbps modem, but I don't think it's that rare, not everyone can 
afford/has access to cable modems and things.

>> 
>> Personally (and I stress personally!) I find it very frustrating when
>> very large images are posted on the web when it is not necessary. It
>> also ineveitably means that I have to scroll around the image which I
>> find very weird - when you view a photo in a book you can see the
>> whole thing at once so why should web users be expected to accept
>> seeing only part of an image at any one time? Still, whatever turns
>> you on I guess. 
>
>What do you define as unnecessary? I am trying to provide high quality
>images as I am frustrated by the lack of them on other sites. If you
>don't want to scroll around the image, there is a very simple solution.
>The photos on my site are around 900x600. If you open the photos in a
>new window* and change your desktop resolution to 1024x768, they just
>fit into the browser window without having to scroll. Any modern
>computer should be able to change resolutions without having to restart
>it.
>
>*On Netscape, simply right click on the thumbnail and choose the "Open
>in new window" option.
>  

Ah, you're one of those: "If you want to look at my page you must have the 
latest buggiest, most bloated browser running on the latest, buggiest, 
most bloated m$ 'OS' " people then?

Regards

OgO
-- 
My Win9x Cursors: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mynx/quentisl/cursors.html
Please don't send me junk leaves! (take them out before replying).

No Silicon Heaven?  But where do all the calculators go? - Kryten.