Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=792437&Start=1&Artist=SevenOfEleven&ByArtist=

I made a picture and adjusted its size to close to 500k as poissible. This way, there is not too much detail loss. Got a comment from a viewer complaining about the file size.

Should I have compressed the picture more so viewers that have dialup can see it or will the picture lose too much detail?

Well, I took your picture down to 178 kB without a really noticeable loss of detail. Oh, the original is a bit sharper when you compare them side by side, but nothing that you would notice if it stood in the gallery. So be kind to people on dialup. I know, I was on dialup till month ago. :-)

-- erlik

I did a couple images close to 500kb but remembered those poor dialup users(I was one of them before college) and adjusted accordingly. Dialup really sucks. I think Bryster called it DIE-l-up.

Erlik what did you use to reduce the picture? Photoshop?

Aye, Photoshop has the worst compression codecs around, they always have. At stock, how your image is in the gallery...? I downloaded the image to disk, opened it in Riptide, and went to "Save As". Riptide brings it up stock at : 304,586. Almost 200k below what you saved it at. That is with no compression loss at all. Riptide allows you to set your ouput size, and will convert any image to any other type. ANY image type. Well, it won't do Maya .iff files, but any OTHER type. So, if we wanted, we could convert your image down even farther. If I crank the 8-bit scale to "40", then your image size drops to 198,318, which is just small enough for the forums, for example. Again, no visible loss of quality. If you're interested in Riptide let me know and I'll dig up the link for it. Amazing program, it does batch processing as well. But don't let it worry you! Most people should, by now, be patient with the internet. If they aren't, they should learn a thing or two from Bryce's rendering engine!

Yeah, Photoshop. That's what I have. Value of 50. OTOH, when I had Photoshop 4, I used Xatio's Image Optimizer, because Photoshop had awful compression then. Now, it's quite okay. But it doesn't need to have a compression at all. It's a professional tool and as such, deals with uncompressed pics, cause that's what you really need for print. :-) So, check Image Optimizer.

-- erlik

I used to use 19k wireless and thats worse. If you were lucky, you could get 800 bytes per second. So I could not download anything larger than 2 megs without it being interrupted. I have Photoshop 6 for the mac and it has a save for web option.

Attached Link: http://downloads.5star-network.com/Graphics/xatio.exe

I use Photoshop 7, it still has really bad compression techniques, no matter which save option... Here's the link for Image Optimizer, I'd use it anytime you'reposting to your gallery, or need to make a forum image small enough to fit...!

I use the JPEG Optimizer Wizard in PSP7. Works for me...

Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader

All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster

And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...

I use photoshop 7 and it works great... if you use the 'save for web' option, instead of 'save as'... gives you a view of your original and what the output will be... adjust the 'quality' slider to trade-off between file size and quality... but the only times I've ever been disappointed in the jpeg quality is when I go down below 50% on the quality...

the JPEG Optimizer Wizard in PSP7 lets you select the quality, shows you a sample, tells you the new size, and even guestimates d/l times for different connection speeds. And does a spiffy job of compressing. HA!

SevenOfEleven my girlfriend and i are both on dialup. To be honest with you if the image is 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600 it makes no difference to either of us. It takes no more time in opening a large image than it does a smaller one on our connections. Most of the time you'll find with dialup connections being slow opening images that the person using it is either downloading something, has a web site open with animated images on it or they have a problem with their phone line. Just upload the image to the size you want and make it to the file size allowed on the site. You can't please everyone in this day and age no matter how hard you try.

I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.

 

Attached Link: http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/graphcon.htm

SevenOfEleven, if your on a Mac you should try the shareware GraphicConverter. It makes smaller JPEGs of substantially better quality as compared to Photoshop.

http://www.roobol.be

I am on dial-up and am looking into a DSL but for right now I can only connect at 28.8kp. If I open a pic in the gallery and it takes forever to view, I just back out and move on. Feel bad admitting that but it takes me forever to view pics in the gallery and I can't spare the time for those huge files. I use IrFanView or PSP7 to resize mine. They both seem to work well.

Burpee, try right-clicking the thumbnail and selecting, "Open in New Window". Then minimize that window and just let it load in the background! (PC instructions, I don't know anything about fruit-based calculating...) Depending on your RAM, you can have dozens of separate windows open and running in the background...

A good suggestion. I have done that on occasion but it makes my next page load twice as slow. Just can't wait till I get a faster connection; feel like a dinosaur :D