Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Image size 1024x768 50% compressed jpg

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    14,705

    Default Image size 1024x768 50% compressed jpg


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Reichensberg, ??
    Posts
    3,153

    Default

    Is that you in the back?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    14,705

    Default

    No, that's my oldest daughter with her hubby and 7 kids. Trying to figure out what kind of limits to set on file sizes for images, some of these 1 and 2 meg PNG files people are posting take forever to load.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lawrence (Indianapolis), IN
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sniper297 View Post
    some of these 1 and 2 meg PNG files people are posting take forever to load.
    Yeah, some folks just can't seem to comprehend that not everyone has the latest and greatest computer equipment to access the internet at light speed and/or that not everyone has the money to upgrade either. The most interesting this is, many forums have basic policies limiting the sizes and file types for posting screen captures too, yet many never seem to read them, or they chose not to follow them. Unfortunately, if someone even politely asks them to post more community friendly pictures, they either chose to ignore it, or make nasty comments instead.

    I am still on dial-up, and when it takes me more that 5 minutes or longer to load up a single page of graphics. I usually give up and go do something else... I don't have all day, and for the most part, these screen caps are not worth the wait anyway. What's sad is, occasionally, those that do follow community rules, do have something very interesting to post, but I won't ever see it due to others flooding forums with these huge transfer clogging monsters, and the smaller ones never load, just waiting for their time on the information super highway...

    Thank You, Sniper267, for trying to abide by the rules, and make the whole community a better place.

    Here's a TIP: If you are looking for better quality in smaller pics, I have found that if you take a shot at a lower resolution and save it as a JPG...FIRST, instead of resizing larger pics and then converting the file format, it will look much better.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    14,705

    Default

    That's what's currently under discussion is where the new limits will be set, the original was 150k back when most people had dialup and 14 inch monitors. Some websites still have an 800x600 pixel size limit which is kind of silly when an 800x600 pixel image can easily be 10 times larger than a properly compressed 1024x768 jpg. I understand the desire to keep as much quality as possible, but to me any image over 500 kilobytes just isn't worth the tradeoff.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,633

    Default

    1024x768 I would do 600kb. Most average high quality jpegs in that dimension will ring in at 550kb or so give or take.. So I would just round it up to 600kb for the benefit of the doubt. Most people don't re-size their pictures to post here and that's why the gigantic sizes.. We're just being lazy because we know the board will re-display them at 1024 anyway so why even bother re-sizing.

    I'll get in the habit of resizing them though to keep file sizes down.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    14,705

    Default

    Yeah, what I'm looking at is stuff like this;

    https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showth...5-So-it-begins

    As is that thread takes about three minutes to load on my system, I got AT&T DSL at 68 kilobytes per second, works out to about 4 megs per minute download speed when I got a strong tailwind. Local cable company wants about $50 bucks a month for basic internet and I just don't have the scratch for it. The USA pics thread I don't even look at anymore, after 20 minutes watching the hourglass I just give up and move elsewhere. One example (not picking on you in particular but this is a good sample);



    Single image scaled down to 964x542, 1.5 megabytes, over 20 seconds for one image to load. Copy and paste that one image here;



    Then the same image resized to 1024x576 and exported with PSP7 jpeg optimizer, 50% compression;



    Maybe it's my old eyes, but I don't see any loss of quality between 1500 kilobytes and 64 kilobytes, so I don't understand the point of not compressing the images. Depends on the colors of course, I know some shades of red get a lot of blurring and artifacts from jpeg compression.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,633

    Default

    The quality lose is like night and day.. I wouldn't be caught dead posting that second picture. Come on, you're not that old.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    108

    Default

    This thread took about half as long to load as the other one.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    14,705

    Default

    "You're not that old", it ain't the years, it's the mileage, kid! That first pic is less than half of my grandkids, I have 19 of the little beasts and 1 great-grandchild. However, I managed to find the Windex and cleaned my greasy bifocals, so I see what you mean - there is a little blurring in the compressed image. So how about 10% compression instead of 50%?



    That one is about 155 kilobytes, still about 1/10th of the original file size.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->