|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
01-12-2003, 10:37 PM
|
#1 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
Jpeg's
I have a large jpeg on my home page that I'm making. Here's the question: Would the download be sped up if I broke up the image is to several pieces?
__________________
There are two secrets to staying young, being happy, and achieving success. You have to laugh and find humor every day, and you have to have a dream.
|
|
|
|
01-12-2003, 10:41 PM
|
#2 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,575
|
No, because you're still downloading the same amount of data. What you really want to do is reduce the file size of the picture to reduce load time. Breaking it up will allow parts to show faster instead of waiting for the entire image.
__________________
-At Ford, quality is job #1, job #2 is making them explode. ~Norm MacDonald, SNL News -Switching to Glide..Balancing in my head..inside of me... taking the glide path instead. |
|
|
|
|
01-12-2003, 10:49 PM
|
#3 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
So, you're saying that it will take less time to load by having the parts show faster, right?
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 07:54 AM
|
#4 |
|
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Arlington, TN
Posts: 5,538
|
How large is the jpeg? I always try not to have one larger than 20K, even less if it is the home page.
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 09:16 AM
|
#5 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
Not sure yet. I haven't converted it to jpeg yet. More than 150k, though.
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 10:24 AM
|
#6 |
|
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Arlington, TN
Posts: 5,538
|
That is way too big. What size and resolution is it?
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 12:04 PM
|
#7 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
Resolution is 72, I'll have to check on the size. The computer I'm on right now doesn't have photoshop.
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 03:54 PM
|
#8 |
|
Aerospace
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 1,177
|
Although if you do break it up it will appear to load faster to the user when it actually doesnt.
__________________
FastFly |
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 09:15 PM
|
#9 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
Okay, after saving it as a jpg, it's 116K. My estimate was way off. I guess that's not too bad then.
If two 50k images can be loaded at the same time, would it take less time than to download one 100k image? |
|
|
|
|
01-13-2003, 10:27 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: North Bay, Ont., Canada
Posts: 475
 |
116k is still a big file for a web page.
By what value did you convert to .jpg? Did you try different values? The idea is to start a value around 10 and keep raising until you get the lowest files size but with a loss of quality that you can live with. Slicing the image into two or more pieces will not make the image load faster. 116K is 116K no matter how you slice it, no pun intended. 
__________________
Cheers Eaglefeather My favourite hobby, it seems to me, Is crashing my PC.
|
|
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 03:58 PM
|
#11 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,379
|
I'm using a value of 75, since it is mainly for an art/graphics site.
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
