From: Ingo (seedseven@home.nl)
Date: 02/07/01-07:49:55 AM Z
Dave Rose <photo@wir.net> wrote on 2001-02-07 05:26:11:
>
>Hi Gang,
Hi Dave,
>If I scan at 72 dpi and save as a JPEG to a final size of about 40kb,
>the quality is OK.
forget about the dpi-stuf, its the size in pixels that matters.
Somewhat smaller than 800 x 600 seems to be the standard that can be
seen by most. http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/41/index3a.html?
tw=design and following pages give the dimensions of the canvas of the
differnt browsers at different resolutions.
>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 you have a bad connection your own patience is the best reference.
>In Photo Paint, I have the option to select encoding as either
>"progressive" or "optimize".
Progressive is a matter of taste, I don't like it. I have no access to
Photo Paint and don't know what optimize does. If your images have very
high saturated colours you might want to turn off the supersampling to
prevent compression artifacts.
There is a commandline utility cjpeg that gives you full controll over
the compression process ftp://ftp.simtel.
net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/graphics/jpeg6b32.zip
For more on jpeg: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/
>Is there any real advantage to making 48bit scans,
No
>or should I just speed up the process by doing 24bit scans?
Yes
If your work is B&W / grayscale you could use png instead of jpg. It
has losless compression, a 800 x 600 image is about 53 KB. Not all
browsers support it though.
Ingo
-- Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/ POV-Ray: http://members.home.nl/seed7/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST