Free Animated Greetings - Hiperidrose - Justin Gatlin Doping - US Business Directory - Myspace Layouts
PDA

View Full Version : question about quality

Lpspider
Dec 13th 2005, 3:53 pm
Okay, I have a header/banner on one of my sites that's a .jpg - appears with a clean, crisp quality.

Now, I visit this frequently, and after a while the face gets all blurry and looks really bad.

My questions are - 1)what's causing this 2)do my visitors see the same 3) how do I fix it?

Also, would a .png take to long to load?
fryman
Dec 13th 2005, 4:05 pm
An image shouldn't change no matter how many times you visit... I don't quite understand what you are talking about
solaris125
Dec 13th 2005, 4:10 pm
image doesn't change no matter how long or how much you load it. you might want to visit your doctor
fryman
Dec 13th 2005, 4:11 pm
Seeing an image in my site with the face changing and getting all blurry would sure make me crap my pants...
ferret77
Dec 13th 2005, 4:46 pm
if you are viewing your site via aol or some dial up providers they compress the images and decrease the quality, to decrease load times

that is usually what they are doing when the "accelerate" a dial up connection
Lpspider
Dec 13th 2005, 6:50 pm
if you are viewing your site via aol or some dial up providers they compress the images and decrease the quality, to decrease load times

that is usually what they are doing when the "accelerate" a dial up connection

Ah... that would be it. Dang dail-up. (no highspeed in my area:mad: )

Thank you much.

Now, for the few of the other dial-up, would making this file a png do any good, or is there nothing I can do?
tommie
Dec 14th 2005, 6:03 am
no, jpeg or gif are th best to use for banners, pending on use of colors etc.
mdvaldosta
Dec 14th 2005, 6:38 am
jpg inherently hurts the quality of an image. png is best. But, nevertheless the image will not look worse on a webpage than it does solo unless it's getting resized on the page.
tommie
Dec 14th 2005, 7:54 am
jpg inherently hurts the quality of an image. png is best. But, nevertheless the image will not look worse on a webpage than it does solo unless it's getting resized on the page.

You should also keep the filesize in mind imo, seeing that aol and dial up hate big pics, and if you have a colorfull image to compress .png sucks compared to jpeg
minstrel
Dec 14th 2005, 8:09 am
Absolutely. You can get pretty good image quality with a jpg with a smaller file size. As a dial-up user, you'll appreciate trying to get total page size (including graphics) as low as possible. Ask yourself this: if you were a visitor instead of the site owner, would a possible small increase in image resolution be worth an extra couple of minutes for the download? or would you rather havbe the page load quickly and get to the content faster?
corena
Dec 14th 2005, 8:32 am
If you have the image the correct size when you add it to the site and not resize it to fit you can optimize your jpg for 56k. But a png or gif are always smaller and load faster. So if you do not want people going off to the doctor ..after visiting your site on dial up..maybe you should change your file type.:p
daboss
Dec 14th 2005, 8:33 am
jpg inherently hurts the quality of an image. png is best.
this is not true... jpg is good for photo-type images while png/gif is good for images with clean lines (e.g. cartoonish type images). all image formats have their strengths and weaknesses...
minstrel
Dec 14th 2005, 8:40 am
Corena, you're saying png is smaller than jpg?

I suck at graphics generally but I thought it was the other way round...
daboss
Dec 14th 2005, 9:06 am
Corena, you're saying png is smaller than jpg?...
no one can answer this question because the answer is: it depends on the image...

if you take a photograph (e.g. at the beach), jpg will almost always be smaller than gifs or pngs (at the same quality settings). however, if you have an image of logos (where it's mostly vector-like lines), gifs and pngs will almost always be better of in terms of size as compared to jpgs (at the same quality settings)...
minstrel
Dec 14th 2005, 9:09 am
no one can answer this question because the answer is: it depends on the image...
I meant for the same image - I guess I should have specified that.

if you take a photograph (e.g. at the beach), jpg will almost always be smaller than gifs or pngs (at the same quality settings). however, if you have an image of logos (where it's mostly vector-like lines), gifs and pngs will almost always be better of in terms of size as compared to jpgs (at the same quality settings)...
For "graphics" and logo type images, I almost always use GIF. For photos, almost always JPG. That's what I was questioning because it sounded like Corena was suggesting that the PNG format would be better for photos than the JPG.

Thanks.
daboss
Dec 14th 2005, 9:15 am
...it sounded like Corena was suggesting that the PNG format would be better for photos than the JPG...
nope... pngs and gifs are about the same in terms of strengths and weaknesses (i personally think png is better than gif)...

the png format was developed because a company surprised everyone by claiming rights to the gif format and wanted to charge money for its use...
corena
Dec 14th 2005, 1:41 pm
png. and gif's do not show the photo images as well..you lose color information. That is why you should always look at the image in a photo editor and have it the correct size...before you place it in the site. If you resize in a site editor..like a wysiwyg html editor..the images become pixelated and mis-shapened.. In a image editor you can decide which is better ..faster loading smaller file or a smooth edged image..jpegs will give a smoother more colorful image..but you give up load speed.

Sorry took me so long to answer.
_vlada_
Dec 15th 2005, 8:00 am
Okay, I have a header/banner on one of my sites that's a .jpg - appears with a clean, crisp quality.

Now, I visit this frequently, and after a while the face gets all blurry and looks really bad.

My questions are - 1)what's causing this 2)do my visitors see the same 3) how do I fix it?

Also, would a .png take to long to load?


Could be simple: do not use progressive compression on jpeg files. If you noticed there are jpeg files that while loading they come sharpner, Starting with blured and in phases they are filled with details in horisontal lines.

Problem could be that your browser loaded once partial jpeg and since then in your cache is that version - partial and blured.

Anyway, do not save jpeg as "progressive"..
theblackjacker
Dec 20th 2005, 10:02 am
seems very strange..
Colleen
Dec 20th 2005, 3:11 pm
Ah... that would be it. Dang dail-up. (no highspeed in my area:mad: )

Thank you much.

Now, for the few of the other dial-up, would making this file a png do any good, or is there nothing I can do?
It's been awhile since I used AOL but this can be diabled so you will see graphics properly.

This page will show you step-by-step (pictures) how to turn it off.

http://www.saratogahosting.com/aol/

It used to annoy the heck out of me too. :D
corena
Dec 20th 2005, 3:27 pm
Colleen you are knowledgeable on like everything:P|