2822
<<
Message Index
>>
2824
Number: 2823
From: "InfoSysSec" <infosyssec@i...>
Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [ASC McLaren ] Photo section dilema
Body:
Errrmmm... ah... unfortunately I have the knowledge of the various fun things about the Net and so I will toss in a few pearls of wisdom on this topic.
With respect to the beautiful pictures of the cars. The ground rules about posting or submitting pictures should be :
a) all pictures submitted should be in a 640 X 400 pixel size. Any larger size gobbles up bytes like you would not believe. You can usually average five to ten 640 X 400 pixel pictures for every one 1280 X 1000 picture. Or to put it in simple terms a 10k picture compared to a 160k picture.
b) all pictures should be submitted in the .jpg format. Many pictures are submitted in the .gif format which is wasteful. The .jpg format was created to provide the same quality of picture as a .gif formatted picture - however through the magic of compression a .jpg picture is ALWAYS smaller than the same picture in a .gif format.
There are 'free ware' software programs available that can ' resize ' pictures to the 640 X 400 format ( which is roughly the physical size of a standard camera taken photo print. The larger pixel size pictures usually have the physical size of a 8 1/2 X 11 inch picture.
There are also 'free ware' software programs that can take convert a .gif picture to a .jpg format.
In some cases there are 'photo' programs available that can permit the resizing of photos and also provide the option to save the photo in the .jpg format ( even when you have loaded the picture into the program from a .gif format ).
Then to take things even further.... there are programs out there called JPG Crunchers. Basically what they do is take a .jpg file and further compress it to a smaller size while still maintaining the quality and appearance of the picture. I have taken 16k .jpg files, run them through a JPG Cruncher and the result was a 5k compressed .jpg ( using a 30% reduction ).
In all of the above cases, the photos will maintain their good looks, be greatly reduced in physical size, and be downloadable at an obviously greater speed than the big lumpy fat bloated pictures.
So hopefully this information will answer the key questions of how to more efficiently save and store pictures submitted for display.
Marq
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 9:41 AM
Subject: [ASC McLaren ] Photo section dilema
I would also be willing to put a few bucks in to keep the photo
section going. Although a better idea would be to ditch Yahoo
altogether and start our own site w/ a similar setup as this site. I
don't know the how to do it technically or the costs involved, but it
seems like most people here would be willing to "subscribe" to such a
site by kicking in some $$, perhaps on an annual basis to keep it
going. It seems to me that if yahoo is going to start charging, why
not start our own and design it as we see fit? Anyone have any idea
on the costs involved? I'm willing to help out any way I can, but I
don't have the technical knownledge to get it rolling.
Sean
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|