Would someone else mind checking something for me? In Firefox compare
the size in bytes of thumbnails created by SqueezeCenter 7 to the size
in bytes of the original artwork file.
I use a thumbnail size of 130px and I'm finding that the png files that
are generated and sent to Firefox are often 1 1/2 to 3 times as large as
the originals, which are all jpegs. Similar things are happening with
96x96 and 50x50 pixel images shown in the status pane and playlist.
Here's an example of a cover that is orginally a 200x200 pixel jpeg:
- 'Original Artwork - 12k'
(http://zolx.com/images/covers/Tonic_Sugar/cover.jpg)
- '130x130 - 40k'
(http://zolx.com/images/covers/Tonic_Sugar/cover_130x130_p.png)
- '96x96 - 23k'
(http://zolx.com/images/covers/Tonic_Sugar/cover_96x96_p.png)
- '50x50 - 7k'
(http://zolx.com/images/covers/Tonic_Sugar/cover_50x50_p.png)
I don't see such a disparity when the artwork is larger, say a 30kB
300x300 image. Those 130x130px thumbnails tend to be about the same
size or slightly smaller than the orginal. Though that's still much
larger than I would expect.
Also, I don't see the same thing in IE6, where the 130x130 px thumbnail
is a jpeg instead of a png and the smaller thumbs are gifs.
I suspect the problem lies mostly with converting jpegs into pngs. In
SllimServer 6.5 the 130x130px thumbnail is a 5k jpeg.
(All server and browser caches were cleared, and a wipe/rescan was run
before the above images were saved.)
--
JJZolx
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41311
_______________________________________________
beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/beta
