Subject:
|
Re: Picture file sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:18:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@NOMORESPAMmattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
Terry K <legoverse@geocities.com> wrote:
> 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
It's not a matter of "subjecting to", it's a matter of "offering the option
of".
> 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.
In a lot of cases, probably. But I think you're over-generalizing --
consider for example the images at
<http://www.legomindstorms.com/press/order.html>, which are designed for
transfer to another medium. In that case, it's quite reasonable to provide
larger, higher-quality images. And I'm sure there's other cases.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) True enough. Options are good. (...) Sure, exceptions do exist. For instance, I've been considering adding optional PNG format files in addition to the JPG files for some of the renderings I publish. Why? Because that way the viewer can view (...) (26 years ago, 18-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
