Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Tue Jun 3 21:38:42 CDT 2003
On 3 Jun 2003 at 22:21, John Colby wrote: > LOL. I saved them as JPEG, compressed waaaay down from the original (about > 1/10th the original file size). The original was a 3.2 mpixel at about 1.5 > mbyte. The pictures on the site are about 150 kbytes. Any more compression > and they look horrible. The compression and file size has nothing to do > with the pixels though. > The way it was explained in something I read is that since the image is 2048 > x 1536 pixels, if the user downloading the picture is displaying 800x600, > only a very small part is going to display on the screen, requiring > scrolling. Thus I need a method of constraining the display in a frame > inside my site, where the entire image will be automatically sized to fit > inside the frame. > As I said, you can set the width and height of the image and it will be scaled to fit. BUT you are still storing/downloading a 2048 x 1536 pixel image and squeezing it into a box. The methods used to scale an image in an HTML browser are designed to be quick, not good. They are only displaying about 1 pixel in 13 and not doing a very good job of selecting how to display that one. All they do is generally is resize by throwing away 12/13 pixels. If you resample using a good program which will apply an appropriate resampling filter, you end up with a much better result. As a rule of thumb. Resize/resample first to an appropriate size for your application, then compress. You will get far better results in much smaller files than by compressing first and then trying to resize. -- Lexacorp Ltd http://www.lexacorp.com.pg Information Technology Consultancy, Software Development,System Support.