Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi John, On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:15:04 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > Hi again Ron, > I hope I'm letting you know in time, that it's no longer necessary to try > to find the best manual size reduction method. > I just tried out EasyThumb. Unfortunately it requires Windoze, but its > results are great. It's freeware from Fooke's Software in Switserland. > Thanks again for everyone's help. OK. :) Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Graphics manipulation [was Re: Quicker loading pages
John, First thing I noticed about your large image of the middle picture is that it is relatively low quality, very grainy. Did you use a digital camera to take it, or did you scan a photograph? I'm asking because it makes a difference in what the "first step" is -- which I've been struggling with for some time, myself -- to making a decent graphic for a website, or for a printout. If you used a digital camera, then you got stuck with JPG to begin with ... and if you didn't have the camera set for the finest quality, you've lost definition and workability to begin with. Photos of the vacation are fine in "regular quality," but something for specific illustration really needs to be the highest quality you can get to begin with. The same applies to scanning photos -- go for the highest quality you can obtain. Even if all you can get for the original graphic is JPG, the next step is to consider converting to a bitmap [BMP]. When I am working with images and want to maintain the best possible control, I always have my "master" in BMP form. Yes, I *know* they are huge, but that format is the only one where you don't lose a whole bunch when you covert it. And once you've gotten what you want, you can then change the target to JPG or GIF as the end step, depending upon which format gives you the level of quality you want for the size you want of the final file. If you don't have a whole bunch of drive space available, there is always the very workable, non-loss, ZBM approach; zipping up a BMP file can reduce its size by around 50% give or take a few percents. It is often possible to then store the "too big" BMP on a floppy as a ZBM. Of course if you have a CD burner that is even a better place to put your 'master' BMP files. l.d. P.S. I just realized what I was writing about, and I find it flabbergasting that this level of technology is now available to anyone who can afford a bundled computer system! Ms Josephine Blow now has better graphics & storage technology available, on that cheapo system she bought, than "Lights & Magic" had for the first version of E.T. !!! Technology is running so fast ... I hope we can find valid and valuable uses for it once in awhile. On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:58:08 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > Ron Clarke wrote: >>A thought ! Would you like me to see if I can get your "large" >> graphic down to the size you want to display it at ? >>Just give me the URL and I will have a go. :) > Hi Ron, > I just reloaded my altered homepage and new.htm onto my server. New.htm > is basically a copy of Steve's suggestion. And the homepage has new > jpegs (minus the miscodings). The bottom two tumbnails are now somewhat > larger than before, but their img src is a lot smaller. My gripe is with > the middle picture. I've tried many different ways, but the reductions > and final display have all been rather poor. I think the original may > be lacking enough contrast. The url is http://www.coolbikesubuild.com > Thanks for your offer, > John V -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi again Ron, I hope I'm letting you know in time, that it's no longer necessary to try to find the best manual size reduction method. I just tried out EasyThumb. Unfortunately it requires Windoze, but its results are great. It's freeware from Fooke's Software in Switserland. Thanks again for everyone's help. John V
Re: Quicker loading pages
Ron Clarke wrote: >A thought ! Would you like me to see if I can get your "large" > graphic down to the size you want to display it at ? >Just give me the URL and I will have a go. :) Hi Ron, I just reloaded my altered homepage and new.htm onto my server. New.htm is basically a copy of Steve's suggestion. And the homepage has new jpegs (minus the miscodings). The bottom two tumbnails are now somewhat larger than before, but their img src is a lot smaller. My gripe is with the middle picture. I've tried many different ways, but the reductions and final display have all been rather poor. I think the original may be lacking enough contrast. The url is http://www.coolbikesubuild.com Thanks for your offer, John V
Re: Quicker loading pages
HI John, On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:01:15 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > I may very well be dense Ron; but as far as I understand, resizing in > PictView, or any other graphics program I'm familiar with, alters the > resolution by definition. But if I'm missing something, I'd sure like > to know it. I am probably not using the correct words here. :) What I mean to say is that, to the eye, the clarity of the graphic is at least as good after resizing as it was before, while the actual total pixels (and the file size) is much reduced. > I was informed that GIFS are interlaced, whatever that means; so it may > be worth a try for that reason too. Interlaced just means that the graphic is built up of a number of low-quality layers that together make all the detail in a graphic. Both GIF and JPEG can be interlaced - it is a means of keeping the surfer's interst while a larger graphic is downloaded, it gives them something to look at. But GIFs are not all interlaced. >> Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ? > Yes many years ago, both cshow and 2show. And I was pretty convinced at > the time, that it was the source of innumerable hard disk problems; > caused by the programs because I didn't pay for them. It swore me off > keeping current shareware on my hard drive. I haven't had that problem. > Thanks again for your attempts to help me, I appreciate it. A thought ! Would you like me to see if I can get your "large" graphic down to the size you want to display it at ? Just give me the URL and I will have a go. :) Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: Quicker loading pages
Ron Clarke wrote: > ... resize the original first. This will give you a smaller version > of the original, but with the same quality resolution. I may very well be dense Ron; but as far as I understand, resizing in PictView, or any other graphics program I'm familiar with, alters the resolution by definition. But if I'm missing something, I'd sure like to know it. >I have sometimes found that even this can give a poor result, and > I have used an alternative method to reduce file size without losing > quality - convert the graphic to a GIF, using PictView or Compushow > 2000. > This will reduce the colours from 16 million to 256, and greatly reduce > file size. With a good dithering converter, it is hard to spot any loss > of detail. I was informed that GIFS are interlaced, whatever that means; so it may be worth a try for that reason too. > Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ? Yes many years ago, both cshow and 2show. And I was pretty convinced at the time, that it was the source of innumerable hard disk problems; caused by the programs because I didn't pay for them. It swore me off keeping current shareware on my hard drive. Thanks again for your attempts to help me, I appreciate it. John V
Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi John, On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > Ron Clarke wrote: >> I have found that "re-sizing" the graphic to the exact size specified >> in the web page will do the trick best. It will give you exactly the >> right size graphic for ther way you want it shown. PictView will do >> that nicely (freeware), as will many others. > But either that's exactly what I did Ron, or I don't understand what you > mean. After cropping a 1840x (med. res.) jpeg obtained from CD down > to its bare essentials, a 1173x (same res.) jpeg results. The later > resized by PictView to 150x..., when called up as such, gives a terrible > blotchy result on my 640x480 screen. No, resize the original first. This will give you a smaller version of the original, but with the same quality resolution. If you need to remove some of the outside picture, then crop it after re-sizing. Then, and this is also important, write your HTML to display the picture at its ACTUAL size, i.e. no resizing up or down. This will make the picture display as is, and will not be affected by differing monitor resolutions. I have sometimes found that even this can give a poor result, and I have used an alternative method to reduce file size without losing quality - convert the graphic to a GIF, using PictView or Compushow 2000. This will reduce the colours from 16 million to 256, and greatly reduce file size. With a good dithering converter, it is hard to spot any loss of detail. > Perhaps PictView allows alternate parameters for resizing, but they > aren't obvious to me. PictView is highly configurable. > So the safest is to keep the src at about 640x... > when spec'd at about 160x Correct? I guess it is a case of suck it and see. Trying a few different methods should give an idea of what will work. It may vary according to what you start with. > The bottom two, spec'd at 150x100 were sourced at about 1200x, that's > why the page took so long to load and hence you original criticism. That > 1200x was never enlarged from a smaller res. picture and looks sharp > enough when viewed as such, and thus brings up another question. Could > the reason my thumbnails look kind of crappy be, because the step from > 1200 down to 150 is too great? As you said before, a 640 src viewed at > 160 looks sharp. Rather than think of screen resolutions, I work with actual pixel numbers when re-sizing or writing HTML sizes. That way, you can keep a closer control and also ensure that a graphic is kept in the same scaling (width x height). > I'm limited to use whatever jpegs are supplied by my source and/or > conversion software. I really have no idea, but it looks to me that > "invalid SOS parameters" and not "sequential" is the malefactor here. > Steve's recoding of the jpegs rendered them fine again. But PictView > doesn't seem to be able to rectify the miscoding of ftcolor's output; > it reads them fine, without giving the "error" message. That's why I'd > like to get hold of a different cropping program than ftcolor, so the > problem doesn't come up in the first place. Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ?Shareware, wont print, but one of the best converters I have used. Needs enough RAM, so a 2 MB 386 won't run at all fast, but it will use disk-swap if RAM is limited. I can ZIP and email. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: Quicker loading pages
Ron Clarke wrote: > I have found that "re-sizing" the graphic to the exact size specified > in the web page will do the trick best. It will give you exactly the > right size graphic for ther way you want it shown. PictView will do > that nicely (freeware), as will many others. But either that's exactly what I did Ron, or I don't understand what you mean. After cropping a 1840x (med. res.) jpeg obtained from CD down to its bare essentials, a 1173x (same res.) jpeg results. The later resized by PictView to 150x..., when called up as such, gives a terrible blotchy result on my 640x480 screen. Although it doesn't look quite so bad when put into a tabled html format, as instead of taking up about 1/4 of the screen, it now takes up less than 10% of it; but this is on my screen. I imagine that the higher a resolution a screen allows, the blotchier the image will appear; so that making the src image the same as the spec size is the wrong way to go. Not? See also Steve's comments below. Steve Ackman wrote: > If you take a 640x480 picture and view it at 160x120, > it'll look sharp. If you reduce the size of the graphic to > 160x120 first, and then view it at that same size, it will > all depend on what kind of parameters you incorporated into > the size reduction as to how good it looks. Perhaps PictView allows alternate parameters for resizing, but they aren't obvious to me. So the safest is to keep the src at about 640x... when spec'd at about 160x Correct? > One of the problems with that bottom graphic on your front > page (I didn't look at the others) is that it seems to have > started out at a smaller size, and was then enlarged. Once > you "grow" a picture and then shrink it again, it never > looks the same. The bottom two, spec'd at 150x100 were sourced at about 1200x, that's why the page took so long to load and hence you original criticism. That 1200x was never enlarged from a smaller res. picture and looks sharp enough when viewed as such, and thus brings up another question. Could the reason my thumbnails look kind of crappy be, because the step from 1200 down to 150 is too great? As you said before, a 640 src viewed at 160 looks sharp. Thanks for your software recommendations. And Sam Ewalt wrote: > This page with the bike pictures loads and displays quite nicely > with my Trident 8900 card and the old 386 and Arachne 1.71r3. Could you tell me what you spec'd in Arachne's setup Sam? Is it Vesa or the one below it on the left side of the page? And anything on the right side? The 256 color, 640x480 screen, and 1MB video ram capabilities don't seem to correspond directly to any of the options. I believe I got better results before, with my on(mother)board video. But I've no idea how to reactivate that one again. I never did any rejumpering, the bios settings don't allow for video card determination; and yet I get a blank screen when I take the trident card out again, plugging the monitor into the motherboard video outlet. >The "invalid parameter" message shows first and then (after considerable >cogitation) the image renders. Same here, but then it's cached; and a reloading (from cache) renders a filename only. >Why not use regular jpegs instead of sequential ones? I think they would >display quicker. I'm limited to use whatever jpegs are supplied by my source and/or conversion software. I really have no idea, but it looks to me that "invalid SOS parameters" and not "sequential" is the malefactor here. Steve's recoding of the jpegs rendered them fine again. But PictView doesn't seem to be able to rectify the miscoding of ftcolor's output; it reads them fine, without giving the "error" message. That's why I'd like to get hold of a different cropping program than ftcolor, so the problem doesn't come up in the first place. John V
Re: Quicker loading pages
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Vertegaal wrote: > Thanks for your effort and suggestions Steve, to make my pages load > quicker. New.htm looks just as good on my 14" screen as it did before, > so I did some minor editing and planned to put it on the web as such. > Then I started working on the homepage, but the two bottom pictures at > 150x100 res. took up only 5K ea. and looked terrible even on my screen. > > Now I'm confused. You mentioned 10K for tumbnails. That's a ballpark. Thumbnails can sometimes be up to 20K. > How do you get a > reasonably sharp picture into a small area? I always assumed that a > smaller picture automatically sharpened up. If you take a 640x480 picture and view it at 160x120, it'll look sharp. If you reduce the size of the graphic to 160x120 first, and then view it at that same size, it will all depend on what kind of parameters you incorporated into the size reduction as to how good it looks. One of the problems with that bottom graphic on your front page (I didn't look at the others) is that it seems to have started out at a smaller size, and was then enlarged. Once you "grow" a picture and then shrink it again, it never looks the same. > Furthermore, you mentioned > that your example probably was too low res. for a real-life application. The "low-res" applied to the graphics files you could click on to view, not the inline graphic itself. > Because of my small screen I cannot confirm that. But if I go that > route I have to fall back on my own mangled jpeg to provide the high res. > option, as I only have ftcolor to crop. This may be the best way to go, > or do you know of a freely available cropping program? If there would > be a way to get my onboard video setup working again, I could probably > use Linux. Any advice is greatly appreciated. I haven't used DOS in years, but I seem to recall that qpeg was a good viewer, and Graphic Workshop was pretty good at cropping, shrinking, etc. I'm sure there are better ones. In Linux, I find xv to be a very capable "light-weight" graphics manipulator, and when I need to do something beyond xv's capabilities, I go to gimp. ImageMagick is probably a minor step up from xv, but I find its interface a bit more "clunky." YMMV. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi John, On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:48:27 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > Thanks for your effort and suggestions Steve, to make my pages load > quicker. New.htm looks just as good on my 14" screen as it did before, > so I did some minor editing and planned to put it on the web as such. > Then I started working on the homepage, but the two bottom pictures at > 150x100 res. took up only 5K ea. and looked terrible even on my screen. > Now I'm confused. You mentioned 10K for tumbnails. How do you get a > reasonably sharp picture into a small area? I always assumed that a > smaller picture automatically sharpened up. Furthermore, you mentioned > that your example probably was too low res. for a real-life application. > Because of my small screen I cannot confirm that. But if I go that > route I have to fall back on my own mangled jpeg to provide the high res. > option, as I only have ftcolor to crop. This may be the best way to go, > or do you know of a freely available cropping program? If there would > be a way to get my onboard video setup working again, I could probably > use Linux. Any advice is greatly appreciated. I have found that "re-sizing" the graphic to the exact size specified in the web page will do the trick best. It will give you exactly the right size graphic for ther way you want it shown. PictView will do that nicely (freeware), as will many others. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
