Discussion in 'Test Forum' started by StevieO, Aug 9, 2009.
Hundred and one kb's for a 503x616 png image? GroverH can help you knock'em down!
As a followup to the preceding post:
Wilders makes the posting of attachments very easy and very lenient with their size limitations. Your initial posting is certainly satisfactory, but since this is a test forum, here is some food for thought.
Courtesy to your fellow forum members dictate that the attachment should be no larger than necessary to convey whatever it is you wish to demonstrate. This is in both dimensions and file size. This mostly relates to controlling load time for all the attachments displayed within the postings. Many postings has multiple threads and multiple attachments so load time (before viewing is possible) can be extensive. Many users have fast connections so load time is not important to them but for those viewers still using 56K dialup for their browsing, an efficient attachment is greatly appreciated.
Your test sample (png) was 101KB in file size and 503x616 in dimensions.
A gif file type would have been 74KB. A jpg file type would have been 120KB without any additional compression but if you change the compression down to 50%, the file size drops from 120 to 33KB. If you also remove the unwanted blanks space, you can further reduce the dimensions to 500x 463 and a file size of 29KB--which is illustrated below. No one single file type will provide the smallest file size. It depends upon image content. I believe you will agree, the image below is certainly usable and 29K will load quicker than a 101KB size image.
Good luck with your postings and thank you for reading.
Nice <multiple wiggling thumbs> follow-up G!
I know strange ! i've posted plenty of other screenies in the past that were larger with smaller kB's.
Nice to see you're still around.
Thanx for your interjection at this juncture. Further to the above, i myself in the past have posted asking people to refrain from using BMP's etc, for exactly the same reasons you stated. I will try to take a closer inspection of kB's in future.
I'm not sure what this referrs to ? " remove the unwanted blanks space " What blanks in my sceenie could i have removed, and how ?
Thank you for reading and responding. It's nice to know that my changes did not really alter what you were displaying and yet my editing of your image reduced it in size dramatically.
Compare your image and one I have posted, you will note that right margins has been removed; blank space removed from both top and bottom; plus, some background carryover from your desktop has been removed from the bottom. All I did was just to add a few cleanups to your attachment which can be done in most any image editing program--either free or purchased. Only you can look at your image and know what it is you want others to see. Anything else may or may not be necessary. It's your choice.
Your posting was perfectly satisfactory. I probably would not have responded at all except the size issue had already been mentioned. My only point in my original posting was to illustrate how an image might be made smaller. I looked at the posting as a "teachable moment" for anyone viewing your test image. It nice to know you are already aware of the image size issues displayed on many postings. Multiple Thumbs up.
Seen exactly as posts like these are - teachable moments for lurkers and new members alike.
Separate names with a comma.