Subject:
|
Re: Picture file sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:19:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.SPAMLESSorg
|
Viewed:
|
844 times
|
| |
|
|
Terry K <legoverse@geocities.com> wrote:
> And remember, there is never a good reason to have a screen sized JPG
> picture that is over 100K in size. That is just a huge waste of
> bandwidth.
Unless of course you have a thumbnailed image you click on to get to that.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) Nah, not even then. If the picture is something you want people to see, you should not subject them to a huge file. It's just not necessary to have really large jpg file sizes. Show me a 640x480 200K jpg file, and I bet you it could be reduced (...) (26 years ago, 17-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) I try to keep file sizes at less than 50k - preferably in the range of 10K to 30K. Typically, you should be able to get a picture that is around 600x400 or less in size down to less than 40K and still end up with a good JPG image. Do your best (...) (26 years ago, 16-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
