| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Rocky: What program are you using to edit your pictures? There is no good reason why the quality should be sooo terrible with such large files. Otherwise, great pics! Glad you got them to post. If you are using a scanner, try scanning at 70dpi and when saving the files as jpegs set the quality at 70% (7 of 10). If this doesn't help, go ahead and send me your high quality originals and I'll show ya what jpeg optimizer can do. Blake | ||
| Rockyschiffel |
Al, Sorry for the poor quality. I used the wrong editor. If Blake will delete them I can repost now that I have downloaded Xat Optimizer. THe photos were taken with a digital camera and emailed to my by the owner of the white x1. | ||
| Blake |
Rocky, one other thing. You can put whatever you want within the curly braces { } of the \image{any text here} command. That text is displayed upon passing your mouse pointer over the picture. I'll cull the above posts, thanks for your efforts to improve their quality and reduce filesizes.  Blake | ||
| Rick_A |
Blake, I hear ya but I'd rather have a sharper yet smaller(physically) image. Maybe someday I'll download one of dem compression programs and see what I can do, but it pains me to see low quality images, damnit. | ||
| Blake |
Rick: Anything over 85% quality is pretty much a waste. The following demo is not just for you, but for all inexperienced pic posters here. I remember all to well struggling with file sizes and quality when the BadWeB BBS was born. You can have all the sharpness you want and a decent picture size even without running the pic through special compression software like jpeg optimizer. Can you tell which of these is your original pic and which has been reduced to 85% quality?  .  Original pic @ 98%/49KB . . . Same Pic but @ 85%/16KB Can you see any difference? File size of the one on the right is a third of the one on the left. No special compression software was used; the file was simply opened and resaved at 85%. For posting on the web, anything over 85% quality is pretty much wasted. Zat help?  Blake | ||
| Blake |
To further the discussion, here's the same pic at 85% quality run through jpeg optimizer with the majicompression set at 47%. File size is now down to 12KB  | ||
| Rockyschiffel |
Let me know it this image is better please. I am using a copy of Adobe Photoshop to resize and Xat to compress the image.  | ||
| Rockyschiffel |
 | ||
| Blake |
Rocky: WAY better! Thanks! FYI: JPEG optimizer should also allow you to resize. That should save you quite a lot of time in pic processing. | ||
| Rockyschiffel |
Thanks Blake for all your help. |
