Scott Turner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not wanting to further hijack Roger's thread with
> his nice images, I thought I'd finish my jpeg
> thoughts as a separate topic.
>
> The links which follow are to the same image.
> This image is a torture test for jpeg compression,
> as it features nicely saturated colors, and a
> great deal of very sharp (in fact, I intentionally
> accentuated the sharpening a bit) high-frequency
> detail. The actual image is 930x620 pixels, on a
> grey background of 1150x800.
>
> The first image was saved in Photoshop (Save
> as...) at maximum jpeg quality, and is a bit over
> 900k in size. The second was saved in Irfanview,
> at modest compression to bring the size down to
> what I generally try to stick with as a compromise
> and is just over 200k.
>
> Are there differences? Yep, but you'll have to
> sit and A-B them in an editor or viewer to see
> 'em, and even then you really won't see any
> appreciable difference in quality, and that's the
> real point here.
>
> Dialup Warning! Open the first image at your
> peril!
>
> Large jpeg image
>
> Compressed jpeg image
>
> The bottom line? You can maintain quality with
> moderate jpeg compression for web viewing. Huge
> file sizes for web-sized images are overkill and
> offer no real advantages. See for yourself.
>
> Oh, and... the image is of NG subject matter.
I wonder if the forum software Don is using has any thing that people could use to reduce the size of the images on spot?