Subject:
|
Re: PRIORITY TRANSMISSION
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:55:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
142 times
|
| |
|
|
I’m with Mike P.
What exactly is the excuse for not web-optimizing these very fuzzy images in the
first place? It takes like 1 minute to do (even though I screwed up my naming
convention on the last image). The new versions of these images are something
around 280 kb. total and about the same quality as the original at approx. 575
kb total. It could have been even more concise if I had resized the images and
not just optimized them at their current size -- smaller could have been even
faster with no significant loss in quality/detail.
If you aren’t web-optimizing images, you are totally being a high speed
connection snob. I feel sure that there must be reasonably inexpensive software
that will handle it. And isn’t Mark S. in design or something?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: PRIORITY TRANSMISSION
|
| "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:HLCGG1.y1w@lugnet.com... (...) in the (...) naming (...) something (...) 575 (...) images and (...) even (...) software (...) This is stuff you'd have to ask Mark, but I know the only (...) (21 years ago, 17-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: PRIORITY TRANSMISSION
|
| (...) Why do people post 1600x1200 pictures on BrickShelf? I love looking at these pictures where I have no idea what on earth the thing is because you have to scroll all over creation. People are just lazy sometimes. Personally, I crop pictures (...) (21 years ago, 17-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
