On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:53:53 -0500 "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lossless formats are not suitable for web display of images. They're > far too bandwidth intensive, unless both server and client are > connected via a truly high-bandwidth connection. > > There is an easy fix for your problem. Use a file format designed for > this sort of use. PNG is NOT designed for the display of photographic > images (It's designed as a replacement for GIF, not JPEG). You might > be able to get away with it if you had a colo'd server (at least for > users like myself on high-bandwidth connection) but as it is your site > is an exercise in how not to present your images online. It IS suitible, IF you remember to switch from RGB to Greyscale, which i did not!! Thats why there were so big. You can have greyscale images in png format and end up not any bigger than a jpeg, as jpeg does NOT support anything other than RGB. The images are now 1/3rd the size they were before, re-uploading them now. > -Adam > > On 12/20/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:07:46 -0500 > > "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:11:13 -0800 > > > > "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >I also refuse to use jpeg, png or nothing. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Wow. That's bizarre. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hardly, jpeg is lossy compression. It grabs a square of pixels and > > > > > > averages them, you lose both dynamic range and resolution with > > > > > > jpeg. PNG is lossless and opensource. The other problem with jpeg > > > > > > is that because of the way it handles compression, it chokes on > > > > > > film grain. There isn't a way to feed a jpeg encoder a image with > > > > > > allot of film grain and have it spit out a reasonable result. > > > > > > People use it because they just don't know any better. > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about displaying photographs on the internet, which is > > > > > meant > > > > > to be a way of sharing information quickly and easily. Image > > > > > compression > > > > > quality takes a back seat most of the time around here, and no one > > > > > else > > > > > seems to be complaining about it. > > > > > > > > > > Your elitist attitude is grating. If you really don't care about what > > > > > others think of your photos, why bother posting them in the first > > > > > place? > > > > > > > > I thought they may enjoy it, I was wrong, instead they looked for > > > > something to complain about. Typical of the bulk of people really. > > > > > > I've got more bandwidth than God when I'm at work. I work for the > > > company formerly known as UUNET. I've got straight 100MB Full-Duplex > > > connections directly to the alter.net backbone. Your site is still too > > > slow. PNG is NOT a format for rendering photographic output. If fact > > > you probably couldn't have picked a worse format (Well, GIF, but it's > > > got all the bad points of PNG with the addition of patent > > > encumbrance). JPEG is the only commonly supported graphics format > > > suited to web display of photographic images. Yes, it does have some > > > bad points, but a max quality JPEG with smaller, lower-quality > > > thumbnails will produce similar quality output (visually > > > indistinguishable for the full-size image) with far better page render > > > speeds (because your thumbnail's won't be 20x the size they need to > > > be). > > > > Well the thumb nail size is a problem, but there is no easy fix. If i hard > > wire coppermine to always output jpeg, then it will mung thumbnails for > > animated gifs. I think what i can do however is whip up a quick bash > > script to find png thumbnails and run them back throughimage magic and make > > jpeg thumbnails. I still refuse jpeg for the full resoultion image on > > black and white, it looses far too much detail. PNG is far from the worst > > option. Its compression is actually very good for a lossless format. Keep > > complaining, i'll make the whole site in Amiga IFF, find me web browser > > other than AWEB that supports that. :D > > > > I never said anyone was at fault for bandwidht other than myself. Its just > > hosted off my cable internet line, and it will never be coloed. Too slow > > for you, not too slow for anyone with even a hint of patience. > > > -Adam > > > Who did know M68K assembly back in the day. But hasn't used it in a > > > decade. > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > > follow the directions. > > > > > > -- > > Ben 'Polyhead' Smith > > KE7GAL > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Ben 'Polyhead' Smith KE7GAL -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
