I thought I'd take a look throught the gallery, I do that once in a while. I notice that the majority of images try to use as large of file size as possible. I'm on a dial up, so I didn't bother looking at very many, even though the thumb was intersting. I don't have the time or patience to wait for the image to load. Now, I know I had done that with my first couple of images, didn't know better. Is this a newbee thing? I don't think so. To many of the images are from artists that have been posting for awhile. Now you can't tell me all those wares copies of PhotoShop can't compress an image so it still looks crisp but doesn't take 300-500kb of space. LOL. Kidding aside, how about compressing those images a bit, you might get more hits if it was a reasonable size. Just a thought.

ditto

Dial-up user here too, I've just about given up on the galleries, it's all I can do to load a product page with endless html and 20 preview images :(

The best compression and resampling on PC is with the IrfanViewer... beter resampling than Photoshop, I've done tests. Sorry, no link but Google will find it.

okay, I'll be he first to don the dunce cap for this one...how do you compress an image? when I am saving my images after postworking in Photoshop CS, I use "save for web" instead of the regular "save as", and I know that saves file size...if there is a way to do it in Poser, I guess I have overlooked it...thanks

Compression is a tricky thing. An intricate pattern of the same size as a sky will have a much larger filesize at the same quality settings and the risk of artefacts is much higher. Many works nowadays are realyy veru-y detailed when it comes to textures. This makes compression much more difficult. Many people ask for larger images as they have now bigger monitors and ditto screen settings.(1024x1280, 1200x1600,...) To be honest: me too I prefer larger images as detail is better visible. But I can well understand your frustration. Some people exaggerate. Images more that 1000pixels wide and 427kB are not downloadable for everyone.

Attached Link: http://www.irfanview.com

this is how you get spoiled by Broadband..;) sorry 'bout that. The limit is 500k on pics, and usually it's not something I run into much. My sympathies trying to peruse this site with dial-up.

I agree with pakled, being on broadband you tend to forget there are still people on dial up, you look at the 500k limit and get as close as you can I guess! But now it's been mentioned I'm sure we'll all take it on board ;-) thefixer, poser coord.

I also am on dialup and get my images as close to 500k as possible because I care what they look like. Compression be damned.

Jpeg2000 wavelet compression is the answer here. The more people realise that there are already free browser plugins for viewing jpeg2000 files (the ones with .j2c extension), the quicker the images start to show up in galleries like Rendo's. I have a Morgan plugin in my FireFox and being following the progress of jpeg2000 standardisation for years, I can tell that it easily cuts image sizes to 10%-20% compared to regular jpeg compression without losing image quality. Btw ... quite a few image-editing packages can already write jpeg2000 files - people are just not using them yet. I wish they were.

i save my poser renders first as bmp-files. after postworking i save them in PNG file format (lossless, but only 30-50% filesize in compariosn to BMP file format).

for web publishing I also use Irfan (great tool BTW, i registered my copy for 20$;
irfan (the programmer) is a nice guy, i think he lives in slovenja or austria and speaks german as well).
I load my images in irfanviewer and resave them as jpg. you may use the slider for Save Quality.
i mostly use a quality of 80%, which is sufficient for most purposes. a 1024x768 images is
most within a range of 200-300 KB. you may experiment with the slider, check filesize and
image quality. works fine for me :)
there is also a plugin for jp2 file format in irfan.

Message edited on: 09/01/2005 10:01

Yeah, I don't post overly large graphics. I believe the image I uploaded this morning was 800-something by 700-something. But to keep all the details, like the pores in the skin, I had to keep the quality setting high. I don't mean any offense by this at all, and I hope I don't hurt any feelings, but broadband is the way to go these days. Yes, I am aware there are places that cannot even get broadband service, but that cannot be helped. It basically goes back to the old website argument about when to migrate from 800x600, to 1024x768. At some point, you have to leave the old technology behind. It's really a design decision. I am in agreement with UVDan. I would much rather keep my quality, than drop it to serve those who take longer to DL. Again, no offense is meant, but it's the truth. As far as any new file formats, your Firefox can support it all you like, but until M$ decides to support it, it will never be widespread. The simple fact is, people use IE. They aren't going to join the Firefox epiphany, so using a non-IE supported solution is shooting yourself in the foot much more than leaving behind those dial-up users.

Ditto. There's really no excuse for posting wasteful images when Irfan is so cheap and so GOOD. I notice the same thing in other websites like Goth photo groups (which I'm browsing only to appreciate the wonderful poetry, of course, ahem). Almost every entry has oversized and uncompressed photos, accompanied by a disclaimer like "sory for teh big pix, my compouter dosen't have a phopo prorgam." * * Everyone must get Irfan! * * Sidenote: Irfan Skiljan isn't the only wonderful programmer in that part of the world. The former Yugoslavia is just packed with authors of efficient and easy-to-use applications for all purposes.

In Photoshop, go to File > Save for Web. Then, select JPG and set the compression to 85- this is good balance between quality and file size. Users won't see the extra quality beyond a setting of 85, but lower settings (which reduce file size) become very visible. And keep in mind that an image counts a "view" as soon as the page loads... even if you don't wait around for the image itself to load. --John

I agree, irfan is a wonderful tool, probably the single best utility on my PC. Reads/writes tons of formats. 12rounds, I'm curious about the jpeg2000 format.... can Internet Explorer view these properly? or does it take an extension? or - ?

You guys have been real nice... a lot of threads treat dial-up users with a pretty rough "you get what you deserve" attitude even though broadband isn't even available every where and some people can't afford it in any case. I have not sensed a trace of that attitude in this thread which is something I appreciate. I don't think I have seen the Morgan plugin for FireFox at the FireFox extension site... where is it? Is it there? How many people do you think are set up to view Jpeg2000. How about .PNG? Can you upload .PNG in the galleries here?

For Poser save as jpeg with quality 85-90% For PhotoShop as as jpeg with quality 85-90% For Paint Shop save as a jpeg with quality (15-10%) (the inverse of the other two). For large images >= 800xnnn is useless and waste of file size to compress beyond 10% (PaintShop), others 90%. With thumbs maybe you need to increase the quality, not to much if not you go off the 15K limit.

It's about time somebody said it. Get those file sizes down. You're costing yourself hits and wasting the site's bandwidth, as if your work is so great, it CAN NOT be degraded by using file compression.

If you use too much compression you get nasty compression artefacts. Weird stuff in the image. I used to be on dial-up so I feel your pain. Can someone recommend a good file size for dialup? I think I make my images too big in striving for detail.

That's nonsense. The moment you choose to save as jpg, the algorithms already reduce filesize and discard valuable information. Degrading is there, whether you save at 100% quality jpg or 20%. The only difference is that at 20% it will be more visible. Jpg is lossy, meaning lost information can never (!!) be restored.

If you want to preserve 100% quality you only can save as BMP, PSD, PNG

I know I am losing quality by going with jpg, but it is the best option for my postings. It allows me to keep my image the size I intended, while keeping the good majority of the details. I will sacrifice a little bit of quality to keep it the same size. Besides, jpg is more widespread than the plague was, people aren't going to just abandon it now. If it costs me "hits" then such is life. I post because I want to. I make my images for me. I simply share them with others. Not to say I don't like when someone leaves a comment, but if I didn't get any, it wouldn't be a huge deal. I know the work I put into my images, and that is enough for me.

destro75: About the "shooting in the foot matter" ... IE has plugins already out there. Some are commercial and some are free. I use Morgan's plugins in IE too, although that's not my browser of choice ... works just the same as in FireFox and is free too.

Morgan Multimedia has plugins at:
http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/
they have a free IE variant as well:
http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/JPEG2000/

Morgan has nices example pages as well with jpeg2000 coded images which you'll see after the plugin is installed.

Some more IE plugins that I know of (but haven't tested myself):
http://www.elysium.ltd.uk/JPEG2000.html
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_download.php?detail=geo_expressview_plugin&platform=win
http://www.jp2tools.de/English/

I do realise that many are not happy installing anything in their browsers ... there are still lots of folks out there who never will install Flash either. I can't help there.

Message edited on: 09/01/2005 13:24

Wikipedia entry if anyone is really interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

Wikipedia info is a bit outdated, but gives a good general view.

Message edited on: 09/01/2005 13:34

Regular jpeg files are pretty tight themselves, but several good programs exists to make the compression better and more efficiently (like IrfanView already mentioned - an excellent program all in all). Xat.com's Image Optimizer (free trial download at the link) allows special tricks such as area compression (part of the jpeg standard, but so hard to implement that major image-editing software packages are disregarding the option) in which only unimportant parts of the image (user selects) are more heavily compressed. Optimizer can also do artifact removals, noise reduction, watermarks etc. http://www.xat.com/io/index.html

As far as installing new software into a browser to view a new type of image file, the chances are slim that the majority will do it. I don't exactly plan on doing it. If MS updates the browser, then so be it. If not, sorry, I am not either. As far as Flash, I believe the claim is 89% of web browsers have Flash installed, and experts believe the number is closer to 98%. But that is really neither here nor there. It is up to the individual to upload they wat they want to. I don't plan to compress my files any more than they already are. If someone else chooses to, however, that is fully up to them. As I said, I understand there are people who cannot get broadband. However, I stopped building websites at 800x600 four years ago, so I am no stranger to leaving the past behind. It isn't to be spiteful or anything, it is simply my own design choice.

"The moment you choose to save as jpg, the algorithms already reduce filesize and discard valuable information" Wrong. Jpeg standard has a special lossless mode. In older software products there remains the possibility of round-off errors unless same program (same algorithm) is used to decode and encode the image. Current jpeg implementations do not lose information at all in lossless mode (0% compression). Reduction in file size (compared to, say, BMP) is inherent to the method used. And in actuality the JPEG Group began developing JPEG2000 after they had introduced the lossless mode in jpeg standard (goes by the name JPEG-LS). More info: http://www.jpeg.org/

Raw Poser render, JPEG Max Quality 100, Erica-Poser.jpg, 119,802 bytes.

I was going to post a similar thread in The MarketPlace Wishing Well, concerning the promo images, instead of the gallery.
I use both dial-up and cable depending where I am at the time. I sweep through the RMP and other stores, and purchase dozens of items at a time, needless to say this requires loading hundreds of bloated promo images.

"If you want to preserve 100% quality you only can save as BMP, PSD, PNG"
add .TIF in there.

Resaved in Image Optimizer, Quality 99, MagiCompression 50%, Erica-ImageOptimizer1.jpg, 58,172 bytes.

"If MS updates the browser, then so be it. If not, sorry, I am not either." Yeah. It will not happen any time soon since MSoft has already said that until Longhorn is put out there will be no major updates to IE apart from security patches. So ... no working CSS2.1 implementation, no SVG support, no XSLT support, no standards-obeying PNG support and certainly no support for JPEG2000. That's just how things are. Some are happy with what they have and some are not. Whoever started the thread is certainly not happy.

The ratio for the above are about the same across the board for any JPEG image output, considering the output quality level is within a percentage or two within each other, regardless if the background/scene is busy or not.

""If you want to preserve 100% quality you only can save as BMP, PSD, PNG" add .TIF in there." and of course TGA.

Athanlore: excellent demonstration :D

Gee, I grab a couple of ZZ's and look at all the fun I miss. Not Happy? No, just a question. Could be worse, no net at all. I check the pixel size to the file size of an image before I click on it. Now I know big pixel images will be bigger but I've seen images 1000 and less using the full amount of kb's. If I could get better net service where I live, I would, it is not an option I have. I don't have the millions it would take to get it to me. Then again, I don't have to listen to the neighbors flush. So, the old tec new tec doesn't really apply to something like this. There will always be someone that will say, "I have it, so you should to." I hope this thread helps some to understand where many of us are coming from and ways to overcome these obstacles. That is what communities do. I could be wrong about that though.

"So, the old tec new tec doesn't really apply to something like this." Yes it does, really. See below: "Old tec": save a jpg from Poser at 0% compression. "new tec": open up and save the same image in, say, IrfanView or ImageOptimizer at the same compression level and you have a file significantly reduced in file size and without any loss in quality. The jpeg standard can be obeyd in differing ways and better programmers use their expertise to code software that performs better.

12rounds,You missed what I was saying. I agree with what you are showing. Was my whole point to starting the thread. I was talking about this. "I don't mean any offense by this at all, and I hope I don't hurt any feelings, but broadband is the way to go these days. Yes, I am aware there are places that cannot even get broadband service, but that cannot be helped. It basically goes back to the old website argument about when to migrate from 800x600, to 1024x768. At some point, you have to leave the old technology behind.

Someone got te $20 buck to spare for it, because I don't.

I think the gallery size limits are way over the top and should be reduced. I open some of them and have to scroll left to right and up and down to see them. I'm on DSL and some take time to open as well. I render in 800 x 800 and optimize the file to a reasonable size. I think that's plenty big enough for an online gallery.

Beryld, I actually meant that in reference to you. Like I said, I understand there are people who sincerely cannot get broadband, and believe me, I feel for them. I cannot live without mine anymore. (I know from experience. Mine went down for 3 days earlier this year and I had a total fit.) I meant old tech in terms of, I cannot wait 5 more years for broadband to reach everywhere. I didn't wait very long to move on with websites resolution. Once people started changing their monitors to 1024x768, I made the jump too. As far the broadband, yes, I am sorry it takes too long for you to view things, and I by no means think it is fair, however, my most recent image was an attempt at realism. You can see the pores on the woman's face. If I turned down the quality (it's around 95%) then I lose that. I wanted the quality, and I am willing to sacrifice a few views. In a perfect world, broadband would be ubiquitous, and free. But we all know how perfect this world is ;-)

I save my renders as TIFF since I do so many composites. Then I use the save to web function in Photoshop. An image 1400x1400 can be about 200kb or more. I don't consider that too excessive, even for dial up.

Beryld: yeah I missed it. I got it now. And agree with you totally. Compressing images to reasonable sizes is the polite thing to do IMO. Even on broadband, those large images take quite some time to open.

I understand the realism aspect as well... a better compression method such as jpeg2000 is already in existence (and also supported by major houses like Adobe and Corel), but hardly used since browser manufacturers are reluctant in adopting it quickly. Shame really.

Message edited on: 09/01/2005 15:41

I think this thread has proved that there are options to be user friendly. If someone doesn't want to use it, that's thier choice. There is no pointing of fingers, no right or wrong to this thread. This is a simple discussion on image compresion. Nobody is telling anyone that they have to do anything they don't want to. I don't have any hard feelings to those that prefer thier big files. This really isn't a "just about me," thread. I think some may have even learned about something that might not have crossed thier minds.

I specifically used a quality level of 100 or 99 in the original comparisons above.
Using anything less will result in the loss of pixel information as you can see.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument here, just giving a heads up to the people who don't know that there IS a difference between JPEG output on various applications.

"Athanlore: excellent demonstration :D"
hehe thanks