Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

Stefan Blumenrath wrote on 28-01-17 21:36:

Ray_Net schrieb:


The zoom was and is always at 100% I have used 79x79 because I have
other "logo" on the same line, so each logo have the same height 79.
You can see the result at the end of this page:
http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr

These pics at the end of the page (i.e. UPMM) are displayed here with
200x200 pixels - My resolution is 3840x2160@15", Seamonkey is set to
100%, windows scales with 250%.
Maybe these absolute px aren't the best solution.

Stefan
I supppose that 79x79 is transformed to 198x198 because your "windows 
scales with 250%" ...

My screen resolution is 1920x1080

What is that "windows scales with 250%" ? Where could we change our 
"windows scales" ?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Stefan Blumenrath]

Ray_Net schrieb:

> The zoom was and is always at 100% I have used 79x79 because I have
> other "logo" on the same line, so each logo have the same height 79. 
> You can see the result at the end of this page: 
> http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr

These pics at the end of the page (i.e. UPMM) are displayed here with
200x200 pixels - My resolution is 3840x2160@15", Seamonkey is set to
100%, windows scales with 250%.
Maybe these absolute px aren't the best solution.

Stefan
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Lee]

On 1/28/17, mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com
<mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>>>> Ray_Net wrote:
>>>>> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>>>>>
>>>>> When I use in html >>>> width="79" border="0"/>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rendering by SM is superb
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
>>>>> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
>>>>> 1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79
>>>>> pixels x 79 pixels so the end-user download this modified
>>>>> picture which is 14 KB
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rendering of this picture >>>> src="logo-small.jpg" height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is
>>>>> poor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
>>>>> the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
>>>>> showing it in the final page ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright
>>>>> idea ?
>>
>> view / page info
>> select media tab
>> find your image / save as
>
> That just saves the file containing the original large image, as linked
> from the HTML source, not the 79x79 pixel image as displayed on screen.
> The image displayed on screen doesn't exist as a file, only in
> SeaMonkey's memory.

Right.  The OP liked the way SeaMonkey shrunk an image down to 79x79
and didn't like the way Irfanview shrunk it down, so saving the
original file doesn't get you anything :(   Sorry for the noise

Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 28-01-17 18:10:

Ray_Net wrote:

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 28-01-17 15:27:

Ray_Net wrote:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html 

The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79
pixels x 79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture
which is 14 KB

And the rendering of this picture  by SM is
poor.


I wonder if perhaps the "79x79" image is actually being displayed at
more than 79x79 pixels on screen, giving better quality. Do you have
the zoom in SeaMonkey set to 100%? Or are you using a high-DPI
monitor? I'm not sure if certain CSS styling or other things might
also affect the scaling.

If, for example, SeaMonkey's zoom was set to 200%, I'd expect that
image to be displayed at 158x158 pixels. A large image scaled down
to 158x158 pixels for display, is going to look better than a 79x79
pixel image scaled up to 158x158.


The zoom was and is always at 100%
I have used 79x79 because I have other "logo" on the same line, so
each logo have the same height 79.


Any other image would also be affected by any scaling, so setting both 
to 79 would indeed make the sizes match, but that doesn't necessarily 
mean they're displayed as 79 pixels on screen.



You can see the result at the end of this page:
http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr


For me with SeaMonkey set to 100% those images do indeed render as 79 
pixels height on screen, so it's probably not that unless you're using 
a high-resolution monitor (where the image would need to be rendered 
large in terms of pixels to appear the same size as on a conventional 
monitor).


I'm guessing it's the "UPMM" logo that you're working on, since that's 
the one that's significantly large than displayed. Since it's a logo 
with large blocks of colour, you might get better quality (and 
possibly also better compression) by using PNG rather than JPEG 
format. If possible, start with a "clean" version of the logo, which 
has never been saved as JPEG.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
showing it in the final page ?

Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?


As others have mentioned, the scaling algorithm used in your image
editor can have an impact on the final quality.

If you want to capture the image SeaMonkey actually displays, you
should be able to press "Print Screen" on the keyboard and paste
into an image editor. Or some image editors have a screen-capture
function within the application (GIMP does, at File > Create >
Screen Shot, I don't know about Irfanview). Then crop the screen
capture to just the image you want and save it. You'll also find
out that way whether it's really being displayed at 79x79 pixels on
screen or something more.


I had used this method PrtSc but the result was poor.


That is odd. It should capture exactly what SeaMonkey is displaying! 
Perhaps the problem is with the process of saving the file. Definitely 
try using PNG rather than JPEG. JPEG is more optimised for compressing 
photos, where colours are continuously variable and edges are not 
particularly sharp, and takes advantage of that. It tends to give odd 
artefacts around sharp edges on logos though. PNG is lossless, so 
doesn't affect the image, and does a good job of compressing images 
with large blocks of the same colour (like logos) - but it's not so 
good for photos.


I am happy with the result I got, but next time, I will give a try with 
the png format.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[mozilla-lists . mbourne]

Lee wrote:

Ray_Net wrote:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html 

The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79
pixels x 79 pixels so the end-user download this modified
picture which is 14 KB

And the rendering of this picture  by SM is
poor.

Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
showing it in the final page ?

Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright
idea ?


view / page info
select media tab
find your image / save as


That just saves the file containing the original large image, as linked 
from the HTML source, not the 79x79 pixel image as displayed on screen. 
The image displayed on screen doesn't exist as a file, only in 
SeaMonkey's memory.


--
Mark.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[mozilla-lists . mbourne]

Ray_Net wrote:

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 28-01-17 15:27:

Ray_Net wrote:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html 

The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79
pixels x 79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture
which is 14 KB

And the rendering of this picture  by SM is
poor.


I wonder if perhaps the "79x79" image is actually being displayed at
more than 79x79 pixels on screen, giving better quality. Do you have
the zoom in SeaMonkey set to 100%? Or are you using a high-DPI
monitor? I'm not sure if certain CSS styling or other things might
also affect the scaling.

If, for example, SeaMonkey's zoom was set to 200%, I'd expect that
image to be displayed at 158x158 pixels. A large image scaled down
to 158x158 pixels for display, is going to look better than a 79x79
pixel image scaled up to 158x158.


The zoom was and is always at 100%
I have used 79x79 because I have other "logo" on the same line, so
each logo have the same height 79.


Any other image would also be affected by any scaling, so setting both 
to 79 would indeed make the sizes match, but that doesn't necessarily 
mean they're displayed as 79 pixels on screen.



You can see the result at the end of this page:
http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr


For me with SeaMonkey set to 100% those images do indeed render as 79 
pixels height on screen, so it's probably not that unless you're using a 
high-resolution monitor (where the image would need to be rendered large 
in terms of pixels to appear the same size as on a conventional monitor).


I'm guessing it's the "UPMM" logo that you're working on, since that's 
the one that's significantly large than displayed. Since it's a logo 
with large blocks of colour, you might get better quality (and possibly 
also better compression) by using PNG rather than JPEG format. If 
possible, start with a "clean" version of the logo, which has never been 
saved as JPEG.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
showing it in the final page ?

Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?


As others have mentioned, the scaling algorithm used in your image
editor can have an impact on the final quality.

If you want to capture the image SeaMonkey actually displays, you
should be able to press "Print Screen" on the keyboard and paste
into an image editor. Or some image editors have a screen-capture
function within the application (GIMP does, at File > Create >
Screen Shot, I don't know about Irfanview). Then crop the screen
capture to just the image you want and save it. You'll also find
out that way whether it's really being displayed at 79x79 pixels on
screen or something more.


I had used this method PrtSc but the result was poor.


That is odd. It should capture exactly what SeaMonkey is displaying! 
Perhaps the problem is with the process of saving the file. Definitely 
try using PNG rather than JPEG. JPEG is more optimised for compressing 
photos, where colours are continuously variable and edges are not 
particularly sharp, and takes advantage of that. It tends to give odd 
artefacts around sharp edges on logos though. PNG is lossless, so 
doesn't affect the image, and does a good job of compressing images with 
large blocks of the same colour (like logos) - but it's not so good for 
photos.


--
Mark.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Lee]

On 1/28/17, Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
> mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 28-01-17 15:27:
>> Ray_Net wrote:
>>> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>>>
>>> When I use in html >> width="79" border="0"/>
>>>
>>> The rendering by SM is superb
>>>
>>> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
>>> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
>>> 1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB
>>>
>>>
>>> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x
>>> 79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14
>>> KB
>>>
>>> And the rendering of this picture >> src="logo-small.jpg" height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is
>>> poor.
>>
>> I wonder if perhaps the "79x79" image is actually being displayed at
>> more than 79x79 pixels on screen, giving better quality. Do you have
>> the zoom in SeaMonkey set to 100%? Or are you using a high-DPI
>> monitor? I'm not sure if certain CSS styling or other things might
>> also affect the scaling.
>>
>> If, for example, SeaMonkey's zoom was set to 200%, I'd expect that
>> image to be displayed at 158x158 pixels. A large image scaled down to
>> 158x158 pixels for display, is going to look better than a 79x79 pixel
>> image scaled up to 158x158.
>>
> The zoom was and is always at 100%
> I have used 79x79 because I have other "logo" on the same line, so each
> logo have the same height 79.
> You can see the result at the end of this page:
> http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr
>>> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
>>> the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
>>> showing it in the final page ?
>>>
>>> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?
>>
>> As others have mentioned, the scaling algorithm used in your image
>> editor can have an impact on the final quality.
>>
>> If you want to capture the image SeaMonkey actually displays, you
>> should be able to press "Print Screen" on the keyboard and paste into
>> an image editor. Or some image editors have a screen-capture function
>> within the application (GIMP does, at File > Create > Screen Shot, I
>> don't know about Irfanview). Then crop the screen capture to just the
>> image you want and save it. You'll also find out that way whether it's
>> really being displayed at 79x79 pixels on screen or something more.
>>
> I had used this method PrtSc but the result was poor.

view / page info
select media tab
find your image / save as

Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Lee]

On 1/27/17, Ray_Net  wrote:
> EE wrote on 27-01-17 21:46:
>> Pete wrote:
 Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.
>>>
>>> I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of
>>> resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what
>>> software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> If it is a jpeg file, save it with 100% instead of using the default.
>> You lose less data that way.
>>
> It was saved with 100% 

Which doesn't get you any compression.  Can you try this:

open original image in irfanview
R (Image / Resize/Resample)
select radio button for Set new size
set Width: 79
select radio button for Units: pixels
Set check mark for Preserve aspect ratio
Clear check mark for Apply sharpen after Resample, Adjust DPI based on new sizes
select Size method: radio button Resample (better quality), use Filter
select Lanczos (slowest) from drop-down menu
Clear check marks for Use fast Resample filter for image shrinking,
Try to improve gamma for Resample
OK

File / Save as
Save as type: JPG - JPG/JPEG Format
Set check mark for Show options dialog

1st try:
clear all check marks on JPEG/GIF save options window except for
- Try to save with original JPG quality
Save

2nd try:
clear check mark for Try to save with original JPG quality
set Save quality slider to 75
Save


What I got for a 2MB file with an image quality 96:
- Save with original quality results in 5KB file
- Save with quality: 75 results in 2KB file

Regards,
Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 28-01-17 15:27:

Ray_Net wrote:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html 

The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x
79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14
KB

And the rendering of this picture  by SM is
poor.


I wonder if perhaps the "79x79" image is actually being displayed at 
more than 79x79 pixels on screen, giving better quality. Do you have 
the zoom in SeaMonkey set to 100%? Or are you using a high-DPI 
monitor? I'm not sure if certain CSS styling or other things might 
also affect the scaling.


If, for example, SeaMonkey's zoom was set to 200%, I'd expect that 
image to be displayed at 158x158 pixels. A large image scaled down to 
158x158 pixels for display, is going to look better than a 79x79 pixel 
image scaled up to 158x158.



The zoom was and is always at 100%
I have used 79x79 because I have other "logo" on the same line, so each 
logo have the same height 79.
You can see the result at the end of this page: 
http://www.randoevasion.be/index.php?lang=fr

Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
showing it in the final page ?

Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?


As others have mentioned, the scaling algorithm used in your image 
editor can have an impact on the final quality.


If you want to capture the image SeaMonkey actually displays, you 
should be able to press "Print Screen" on the keyboard and paste into 
an image editor. Or some image editors have a screen-capture function 
within the application (GIMP does, at File > Create > Screen Shot, I 
don't know about Irfanview). Then crop the screen capture to just the 
image you want and save it. You'll also find out that way whether it's 
really being displayed at 79x79 pixels on screen or something more.



I had used this method PrtSc but the result was poor.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[mozilla-lists . mbourne]

Ray_Net wrote:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html 

The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x
79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14
KB

And the rendering of this picture  by SM is
poor.


I wonder if perhaps the "79x79" image is actually being displayed at 
more than 79x79 pixels on screen, giving better quality. Do you have the 
zoom in SeaMonkey set to 100%? Or are you using a high-DPI monitor? I'm 
not sure if certain CSS styling or other things might also affect the 
scaling.


If, for example, SeaMonkey's zoom was set to 200%, I'd expect that image 
to be displayed at 158x158 pixels. A large image scaled down to 158x158 
pixels for display, is going to look better than a 79x79 pixel image 
scaled up to 158x158.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before
showing it in the final page ?

Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?


As others have mentioned, the scaling algorithm used in your image 
editor can have an impact on the final quality.


If you want to capture the image SeaMonkey actually displays, you should 
be able to press "Print Screen" on the keyboard and paste into an image 
editor. Or some image editors have a screen-capture function within the 
application (GIMP does, at File > Create > Screen Shot, I don't know 
about Irfanview). Then crop the screen capture to just the image you 
want and save it. You'll also find out that way whether it's really 
being displayed at 79x79 pixels on screen or something more.


--
Mark.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Alex Beauroy]

On 28/01/2017 00:12, Ray_Net wrote:

Lucas Levrel wrote on 27-01-17 22:40:

Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit :


Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to
"presque aussi bien/bon" ?


No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux",
just as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare
not say it is".

Exactly, you have well understood the background of my thought.

Even better!!!
Best Regards
@lex
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

Lucas Levrel wrote on 27-01-17 22:40:

Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit :


Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to
"presque aussi bien/bon" ?


No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", 
just as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare 
not say it is".

Exactly, you have well understood the background of my thought.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

EE wrote on 27-01-17 21:46:

Pete wrote:

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.


I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of
resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what
software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.

Peter

If it is a jpeg file, save it with 100% instead of using the default. 
You lose less data that way.



It was saved with 100% 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Mason83]

On 27/01/2017 22:40, Lucas Levrel wrote:

> Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit :
> 
>> Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to
>> "presque aussi bien/bon" ?
> 
> No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", just 
> as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare not say 
> it is".
> 
>> So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not
>> as good as Y; is that correct?
> 
> Rather: you were not expecting X to be as good as Y, but it turns out to 
> be as good, or maybe even slightly better.

I see. Thanks for the clarifications ;-)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Lucas Levrel]

Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit :


Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to
"presque aussi bien/bon" ?


No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", just 
as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare not say 
it is".



So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not
as good as Y; is that correct?


Rather: you were not expecting X to be as good as Y, but it turns out to 
be as good, or maybe even slightly better.


--
LL
 Ἕν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα (Σωκράτης)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[EE]

Pete wrote:

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.


I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of
resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what
software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.

Peter

If it is a jpeg file, save it with 100% instead of using the default. 
You lose less data that way.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Mason83]

On 27/01/2017 17:54, Ray_Net wrote:
> Mason83 wrote on 27-01-17 16:08:
>> On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote:
>>
>>> then X is nearly better than
>>
>> "nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-)
>
> Sorry, my mother language is french and I use "Presque mieux" than 
> Who can be translated as "Almost better"  Did you better understand 
> this ?

Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to
"presque aussi bien/bon" ?

So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not
as good as Y; is that correct?

Regards.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

Mason83 wrote on 27-01-17 16:08:

On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote:


then X is nearly better than

"nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-)

Sorry, my mother language is french and I use "Presque mieux" than 
Who can be translated as "Almost better"  Did you better understand 
this ?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Mason83]

On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote:

> then X is nearly better than

"nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

Ray_Net wrote on 27-01-17 01:51:

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html width="79" border="0"/>


The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this 
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB



To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 
79 pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB


And the rendering of this picture height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied 
the reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before 
showing it in the final page ?


Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?

Thanks a lot for all the ideas, finally
I used Irfanview to resample to 600x600  and I Sharpen before the save.
So now from 1852x1852 = 2.042 MB to 600x600 = 298KB
then displaying with the "height="79" width="79"" option is nearly 
better than SM rendering of the big picture.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 27-01-17 04:13:

Richard Alan wrote:


Ray_Net wrote:


I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels When I use in html

The rendering by SM is superb


Stands to reason...


BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?


He's probably using the European delimiter system, where commas and 
periods are transposed. So his "2.042" is the American "2,042."



Yes, 2.042 KB is nearly 2 MB ... sorryr to be European :-)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[David E. Ross]

On 1/26/2017 9:11 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
> 
>> I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file
>> that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.
> 
> Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color 
> depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476 bytes = 837.38 kB (black and white) is much 
> less than 1852×1852×1,048,576/8=449,564,377,088 bytes = 439,027,712 kB = 
> 428,738 MB (true color).
> 
> I haven't bothered to account for check bits and the efficiency achieved 
> by the lossy JPEG format, but the principle holds: color depth affects 
> file size.
> 
I took a color photograph 2615 x 1656 px with 24-bit true color and a
resolution of 350 px/in.  The file size was 1.18 MB (European 1,18 MB).

I went and repeated my analysis but with different steps.  This time, I
resized it to 1852 x 1852 px, which distorted it.  The resulting file
was 2.12 MB (European 2,12 MB).  I then reduced it to 500 x 500 px,
which still looked quite sharp.  That resulted in a 90 KB file.

Previously, I cropped the photo to get a square 1656 x 1656 px image and
then resized it to 1852 x 1852 px.  Obviously, cropping caused a loss of
pixels and thus a reduced file size.  Ooops!

-- 
David E. Ross


When the President of the United States makes a statement of
national importance, I want to see his face as he is talking.
At the least, I want to hear his voice.

Donald:  Stop tweeting.  Otherwise, how do we know the message
really comes from you?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Paul B. Gallagher]

David E. Ross wrote:


I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file
that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.


Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color 
depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476 bytes = 837.38 kB (black and white) is much 
less than 1852×1852×1,048,576/8=449,564,377,088 bytes = 439,027,712 kB = 
428,738 MB (true color).


I haven't bothered to account for check bits and the efficiency achieved 
by the lossy JPEG format, but the principle holds: color depth affects 
file size.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[David E. Ross]

On 1/26/2017 4:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
> 
> When I use in html  border="0"/>
> 
> The rendering by SM is superb
> 
> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this 
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852 
> which is 2.042 KB
> 
> 
> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79 
> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB
> 
> And the rendering of this picture  height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.
> 
> 
> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the 
> reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before showing 
> it in the final page ?
> 
> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?
> 

I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file that
is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.

Since your image is square, try resizing it to 600x600 px.  That would
be a file slightly smaller than 1/9 of the original.  Viewed at 79x79
px, it should still be sharp and significantly smaller.

If it is not sharp enough after resizing, some image-editing
applications allow you to increase the pixel density.  Do that BEFORE
resizing.  Just be careful not to undo the benefit of resizing.

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

When the President of the United States makes a statement of
national importance, I want to see his face as he is talking.
At the least, I want to hear his voice.

Donald:  Stop tweeting.  Otherwise, how do we know the message
really comes from you?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard Alan wrote:
> Ray_Net wrote:
> 
>> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>> When I use in html > border="0"/>  The rendering by SM is superb
> 
> Stands to reason...
> 
>> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
>> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
>> which is 2.042 KB
> 
> KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?
> 
>> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79
>> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB
> 
> That's more reasonable.
>> And the rendering of this picture > height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.
> 
> Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.
> 

When reducing choose resampling over resize and pick filter for better
quality. After resampling, especially so severely, try sharping the
results, SHIFT+S


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
---
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Pete]

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.


I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of 
resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what 
software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.


Peter

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Richard Alan wrote:


Ray_Net wrote:


I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels When I use in html

The rendering by SM is superb


Stands to reason...


BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?


He's probably using the European delimiter system, where commas and 
periods are transposed. So his "2.042" is the American "2,042."


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Richard Alan]

Ray_Net wrote:

> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
> When I use in html  border="0"/>  The rendering by SM is superb

Stands to reason...

> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
> which is 2.042 KB

KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?

> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79
> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB

That's more reasonable.
> And the rendering of this picture  height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.

> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the
> reduction to 79x79

The height and width numbers in the HTML is what reduced the visual size 
of the image. SeaMonkey was instructed to do that by the web page.

> - then save this new file somewhere - before showing
> it in the final page ?

Not if you re-save it and call it a different file name.

> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? 

http://unknownwebsite.com/images/

> Or have you another bright idea ?

Are YOU authoring this page? Give the URL.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html border="0"/>


The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this 
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852 
which is 2.042 KB



To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79 
pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB


And the rendering of this picture height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the 
reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before showing 
it in the final page ?


Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey