RE: Saving JPEG's for Web use?

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: D. E. Adin (adin@frontier.net)
Date: 02/06/01-10:53:59 PM Z

Dave Rose, (and all)
I was told that 72dpi is all the net can handle and not to waste "bandwidth"
and time . . . .
Do a test or two, I think I can see the difference with higher dpi scans.

????
Durango David
>
> Hi Gang,
>
> I've done a lot of experimenting with my Microtek Scanmaker 4. I'm now
> getting scans from 4x6" prints and 4x5" film that appear to be acceptable
> for webpage use. If I scan at 72 dpi and save as a JPEG to a
> final size of
> about 40kb, the quality is OK.
>
> I'm planning to construct a website loaded with many photos.
> Since I suffer
> terribly from a crappy internet connection here in NW Wyoming, I'm very
> sensitive to slow downloads. I'm struggling to determine what's the best
> compromise between quality and speed. Since I'm about to spend countless
> hours scanning hundreds of photos, some tips and guidance would be very
> helpful, and much appreciated.
>
> Questions:
>
> Is 72 dpi the 'optimum' for webpage use?
>
> Is 40kb a good compromise between quality and fast downloads?
>
> In Photo Paint, I have the option to select encoding as either
> "progressive"
> or "optimize". I like the thought of doing progressive JPEGs, so should I
> save the JPEGs this way as a matter of course?
>
> Is there any real advantage to making 48bit scans, or should I
> just speed up
> the process by doing 24bit scans?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave Rose AKA Cactus Cowboy
> Big Wonderful Wyoming
>
>
>

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST