PDA

View Full Version : Image sizes?



G5Unit
May 24, 2005, 07:51 PM
I noticed on the site that there are a lot of picture with resolutions of over 1024 by 768 and are like 50 kb! When I save even a 640 by 480 it takes like 200 kb. Anyone know how to reduce file size without losing too much quality?


zach
May 24, 2005, 08:07 PM
Use PNG. If you use Photoshop to compress (not sure about preview) it doesn't even give you compression level options, and PNG produces the smallest images for me by far. Using PNG should help to bring the size down low enough, with an only acceptable loss in quality.

I rarely even use JPG anymore, although other compressions are still useful.
G5Unit
May 24, 2005, 08:12 PM
I used photoshop and it brought the size up! Ahh! 2.4 mb for a 1280 by 960. What do i do?
zach
May 24, 2005, 08:14 PM
No, I meant use the application Photoshop if you have it, otherwise just use Preview.

The Photoshop FORMAT will do that. Pick the PNG format instead, and save to that.
neut
May 24, 2005, 08:15 PM
I used photoshop and it brought the size up! Ahh! 2.4 mb for a 1280 by 960. What do i do?

... use the, "Save for Web" command in the File menu. it jumps to Image Ready and lets you play with the compression settings for multiple filetypes.


peace | neut
puckhead193
May 24, 2005, 08:16 PM
In preview you can turn down the quality under "save as".....
neut
May 24, 2005, 08:19 PM
Use PNG. If you use Photoshop to compress (not sure about preview) it doesn't even give you compression level options, and PNG produces the smallest images for me by far. Using PNG should help to bring the size down low enough, with an only acceptable loss in quality.

I rarely even use JPG anymore, although other compressions are still useful.

really?

I know that Flash will handle a PNG better than a JPEG, but for general posting the JPEG compression seems to have the advantage ... if we're talking about photos that is.


peace | neut
zach
May 24, 2005, 08:21 PM
He's talking about a screenshot.

You're completely right: For photos, JPG obliterates PNG.

But for screenshots, or other more simple images, PNG produces images devoid of visible artifacts, and very very much smaller than JPG at the same quality, at least in my experience.
neut
May 24, 2005, 08:59 PM
He's talking about a screenshot.

<snip> ... for screenshots, or other more simple images, PNG produces images devoid of visible artifacts, and very very much smaller than JPG at the same quality, at least in my experience.

that's true ... by using a smaller palette (like the system colors) you can get an incredibly small image; and transparency support (w/matting). :)


peace | neut