2830
<<
Message Index
>>
2832
Number: 2831
From: tasmaniac1
Date: Sat May 31, 2003 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [ASC McLaren ] Photo section dilema
Body:
Marq,
Do you mean .Bmp's to .jpg? .GIF's are even smaller then .jpg's.
-Nick
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "InfoSysSec" <infosyssec@i...>
wrote:
> 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 -----
> From: cassman108
> To: ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com
> 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.