Subject:
|
Re: Picture file sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:48:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
723 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:19:19 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
> 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.
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 down to less than 50K and
still keep virtually the same apparent quality.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) Yup. Keep in mind that there is a strong contingent in your readership that doesn't really care for thumbnails. I want to see your page, laid out and designed to present the information to me in a coherent story, not just a grid of thumbnails (...) (26 years ago, 17-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) It's not a matter of "subjecting to", it's a matter of "offering the option of". (...) In a lot of cases, probably. But I think you're over-generalizing -- consider for example the images at (URL), which are designed for transfer to another (...) (26 years ago, 17-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
