Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Quality of the photos on the website

Reply
Thread Tools

Quality of the photos on the website

 
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
Well, there are about 600 pictures on the website
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com
What about the photo on this page for example?
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html



--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)


http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/elba.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
in post: <news:fMaOb.45033$(E-Mail Removed)>
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html


the image is 308x480px not 193x300px you claim it is in your html.

don't use html to resize images, browsers do a really crap job at it and
it wastes time/bandwidth/money downloading images that are larger than
required. with a very few exceptions images should only be displayed at
their actual size.

--
brucie - i usenet nude
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004

"brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> skrev i meddelandet
news:bubelq$ff7t4$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> in post: <news:fMaOb.45033$(E-Mail Removed)>
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html

>
> the image is 308x480px not 193x300px you claim it is in your html.
>
> don't use html to resize images, browsers do a really crap job at it and
> it wastes time/bandwidth/money downloading images that are larger than
> required. with a very few exceptions images should only be displayed at
> their actual size.


Would you be so kind as to explain further?
If I click by the mouse on the photo I see 193x300px

--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)


http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/elba.html







 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
in post: <news:gtbOb.78705$(E-Mail Removed)>
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>>> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html


>> the image is 308x480px not 193x300px you claim it is in your html.
>> don't use html to resize images, browsers do a really crap job at it and
>> it wastes time/bandwidth/money downloading images that are larger than
>> required. with a very few exceptions images should only be displayed at
>> their actual size.


> Would you be so kind as to explain further?
> If I click by the mouse on the photo I see 193x300px


your html says:

<IMG ... bicchiereunogrande.JPG" WIDTH="193" HEIGHT="300" ...>

which is not the case:
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bil...eunogrande.JPG

--
brucie - i usenet nude
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> skrev i meddelandet
>news:bubelq$ff7t4$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>> in post: <news:fMaOb.45033$(E-Mail Removed)>
>> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>> > http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html

>>
>> the image is 308x480px not 193x300px you claim it is in your html.
>>
>> don't use html to resize images, browsers do a really crap job at it and
>> it wastes time/bandwidth/money downloading images that are larger than
>> required. with a very few exceptions images should only be displayed at
>> their actual size.

>
>Would you be so kind as to explain further?
>If I click by the mouse on the photo I see 193x300px


The image in that page is
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bil...eunogrande.JPG
and is 308x480. That's the image that is downloaded every time someone
views that page.

The browser then squeezes the image down to 193x300 when it displays
it. As browsers are not fully featured graphics programs they do not
as good a job at preserving the quality of the image when they reduce
the size as you could do if you did it yourself beforehand.

By resizing the image in a graphics program to 193x300 you can make it
smaller, thus making the page quicker to download, lowering your
bandwidth costs, etc.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004

"brucie" <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> skrev i meddelandet
news:bubgeg$fhmab$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> in post: <news:gtbOb.78705$(E-Mail Removed)>
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> > Would you be so kind as to explain further?
> > If I click by the mouse on the photo I see 193x300px

>
> your html says:
>
> <IMG ... bicchiereunogrande.JPG" WIDTH="193" HEIGHT="300" ...>
>
> which is not the case:
> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bil...eunogrande.JPG



Thank you.
So, this one http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/...vedesedue.html
for example is correct isnīt it?




--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)


http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/elba.html





 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
in post: <news:yFbOb.45036$(E-Mail Removed)>
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>> your html says:
>> <IMG ... bicchiereunogrande.JPG" WIDTH="193" HEIGHT="300" ...>
>> which is not the case:
>> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bil...eunogrande.JPG


> So, this one http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/...vedesedue.html
> for example is correct isnīt it?


i'm sure you have the intelligence to work out if it is or not by
yourself.

--
brucie - i usenet nude
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan D-W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fMaOb.45033$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well, there are about 600 pictures on the website
> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com
> What about the photo on this page for example?
> http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/muranoglasett.html
>
>


Yours: 11981 bytes.
PhotoShop:
resize to 193x301
Save for web @ Q=9
Result: 4720 bytes
Hardly any visible difference.

My 2p
Alan



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor quality photos: why? Mark Digital Photography 18 01-19-2005 12:14 PM
Need help please finding quality, economical processing of my photos online Alice Gless Digital Photography 6 01-07-2005 02:39 AM
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams Richard Lee Digital Photography 16 08-23-2004 06:04 PM
Bigger image size and lower quality vs. Smaller image size and higher quality Desmond Digital Photography 5 09-27-2003 04:08 AM
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! N.E.1. Digital Photography 4 09-23-2003 02:43 AM



Advertisments