How is this for Web Development

FarligOpptreden said:
WHA?! I'm pretty lost here... I NEVER use large images in ANY of my websites
Click to expand...

ok, but the smaller images on your websites have jagged edges and are not anti-aliased... (which is why they look like source images, plus they took quite some time to load on a ADSL line?:confused: )

when you resize an image in a photo editing app, which uses multiple resamplers, that produce a more crisp, and "smoother" image, it just looks better.

I render my sites at huge resolutions, and scale them down before cutting it up, which produces crisp images, with anti-aliased edges.

also, when you save your image in a image editing program, you can define the compression ratio for your images, which will speed it up even more on some images.

try it...
 
Well, if you read the rest of the conversation (with Raithlin agreeing with me later on), you'll see the reason why I do what I do. It's only with online photo galleries that I do it anyway... Also, if we are talking about the website which I THINK we are talking about, then i don't know why it took long for you to load the images. I just opened it on my 3G connection and they images downloaded almost instantaneously. There was a brief half-second load for each image, where the server-side processing was done to scale down the image for thumbnail purposes.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
where the server-side processing was done to scale down the image for thumbnail purposes.
Click to expand...

it IS the gallery images where it happens.

Why would you want it to re-process the image every time? Do it once - Done!
(Plus it gets resized much better, as is said, if you do it yourself)

I'm just pointing that out, thats all..
From a graphics designer, I notice jaggy edge flaws quite easilly - maybe it's just me....

BTW - Does it compress the images ? if it does, what ratio?
 
Raithlin said:
HERESY!! :p
Seriously, quality is always of importance.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is - but in SA, speed also has an affect. if I have to wait for a site to load large images, taking ages - I usually click back, and go to another site. I don't need my expensive bandwidth to be chowed away unnecessarily.

It's normal to compress images (you can do jpegs quite a lot and you WON'T even see a difference....just compress, compare, and see where the quality starts to be noticeable, and go back a notch.)

You can also do lossless compression.

I'm sure I can resize a average sized image with a 60% compression and it will look better than a "Server-side" Scaled image.

It will load MUCH faster
much less server load, as it's already resized
It's Compressed (even lossless) - smaller filesize.

It will look better
1 word: Anti-aliasing.

just sayin' :)
 
Keeper said:
it IS the gallery images where it happens.

Why would you want it to re-process the image every time? Do it once - Done!
(Plus it gets resized much better, as is said, if you do it yourself)

I'm just pointing that out, thats all..
From a graphics designer, I notice jaggy edge flaws quite easilly - maybe it's just me....

BTW - Does it compress the images ? if it does, what ratio?
Click to expand...

Seriously - read my posts. It's all about maintenance on the server. Why store THREE images when you can store ONE and just resize when necessary? And the reason why some of those gallery images might look bad, is because the SOURCE photos I received were very bad quality photos. It does rescale the image. It's physically a new IMAGE OBJECT that is streamed back to the client, not the original image just displayed at a smaller pixel size (i.e. browser-resized). Like I said, there is a brief half-second pause before each image is loaded, because the server-side code is called to resize the source image and stream the SCALED DOWN image back to the client.
 
Keeper said:
It's normal to compress images (you can do jpegs quite a lot and you WON'T even see a difference....just compress, compare, and see where the quality starts to be noticeable, and go back a notch.)

You can also do lossless compression.

I'm sure I can resize a average sized image with a 60% compression and it will look better than a "Server-side" Scaled image.

It will load MUCH faster
much less server load, as it's already resized
It's Compressed (even lossless) - smaller filesize.

It will look better
1 word: Anti-aliasing.

just sayin' :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. Fully. Except that .Net's compression algorithms are actually pretty damn good - good enough to get away with something like this. Anything else (apart from maybe ImageMagick) and I'd have an issue. I've done this myself in the past, with decent results.
 
Raithlin said:
Agreed. Fully. Except that .Net's compression algorithms are actually pretty damn good - good enough to get away with something like this. Anything else (apart from maybe ImageMagick) and I'd have an issue. I've done this myself in the past, with decent results.
Click to expand...

Yay! Finally some support! :D Raithlin for president!

EDIT: Just imagine the following scenario: You are developing an online photo gallery in which you allow users to register an account, create albums and start uploading photos. For speed, storage and maintenance purposes, you only want users to upload a SINGLE photo. This photo should then be displayed as a thumbnail, as larger preview and finally its original size. Users would be very p-ed off if you force them to upload separate images in EXACT pixel sizes for the different display uses. The only solution would then be to scale the image down on the server as and when needed.

That is the same principal I design according to. Why waste precious hosting space and increase your maintenance burden if its not necessary?
 
Last edited:
Raithlin said:
Agreed. Fully. Except that .Net's compression algorithms are actually pretty damn good - good enough to get away with something like this. Anything else (apart from maybe ImageMagick) and I'd have an issue. I've done this myself in the past, with decent results.
Click to expand...

ImageMagick will most definitely be capable of almost any production level of image resize, transformation or compression. You could also try out GD if your web host supports this.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
Why waste precious hosting space and increase your maintenance burden if its not necessary?
Click to expand...

I agree. but can you select your own resizing filter? (if there is such an option)

it just looks jagged to me.

EDIT: had a second look - dunno...looks like I was seeing things :p they look okay now... me eyes must be playing tricks on me :D

(still loading a bit slow, but it's not TOO bad though....)

/Thread Derailment complete.
 
Last edited:
/Thread Derailment continues...

Keeper said:
had a second look - dunno...looks like I was seeing things :p they look okay now... me eyes must be playing tricks on me :D
Click to expand...
You should wear your glasses more often... ;) Seriously though, no harm done.

Keeper said:
still loading a bit slow, but it's not TOO bad though....
Click to expand...
Like I said, there's a slight half-second pause when the image is loaded to process the server-side request, but this is only for the thumbnails. The fact that the link to the image is something like "photo_resize.aspx" with a bunch of parameters should give it away... :p Try calling the page explicitly and pass in your own sizing parameters to see the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X