>> I guess this is because you have lots of hi resolution pictures taking up 1,
>> 2 or even three mB each. The resolution on a computer screen is such that a
>> cut down file size of about 150k is at the best resolution that can be
>> displayed. All bigger and better resolutions are a waste and just waste
>> bandwidth when accessing the site.
>>
>> Pictures should be made smaller in file size before uploading to your web
>> site.
>
>
> Don't agree Richard, clipping pictures to a smaller resolution is a waist
> of information. Sometimes the value is in the details!. If you have a look
> at my pictures at forum.okhuijsen.org -> gallery You will see that there
> is first a thumbnail, so fast loading, selecting that small picture will
> give you a reasonable 768x1028 definition picture and again click that
> will produce the original definition one, which is too large for normal
> computer screen and will load slowly on anything slower then T1, but will
> offer all the details. Hard disk space is cheap nowadays, and we should
> not throw anything away, that later could be usefull.
I am not talking about the copies of a picture that you store for yourself
and the future.
I am talking about the images available on the internet for download. Any
file bigger than about 150k will not display any better on a screen than
those at 150k. (Of course they will print better)
The problem here is the time to download. If I started to look at a web page
and found it had 20 pictures and the first was 3mB and took 6 or minutes to
download I would not be bothering to look at ANY others.
Richard
Richard F.W. Holder 01279 842804 (POTS)
Bell House, Bell Lane, 01279 842942 (fax)
Widford, Ware, Herts, 07860 367423 (mobile)
SG12 8SH email : rholder@avnet.co.uk
Europa Classic Tri-gear : G-OWWW, High Cross
PA-28-181 : Piper Archer : G-JANA, EGSG (Stapleford)
|