Image compression: Jpeg medium quality

Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #1
I' ll let you know that I really dunno a thing about graphics:
My question is this: I took some images (640*480) and, with appleworks, saved them as jpeg medium quality. -They only occupy 20-25 kb-, not only the ones with a lot of area of the same color. The download in seconds on my 3k/sec connection.

look at
[url]http://www.danlabgames.com/radicalrebound/shot1.jpeg[\url]. (off topic: this is an old pict of my game, in hours you' ll find a new version with completely redone graphics).

I think it' s pretty good, I almost can' t see losses of quality.

So my question is:

WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE NOT USE THIS FORMAT?????
WHY MUST I WAIT TO DOWNLOAD 60 K FOR A 100*100 PICT WHEN I CAN HAVE 640*480 IN 20K??????
THIS THING HAS MADE ME MAD...Mad
Quote this message in a reply
Matt Brown
Unregistered
 
Post: #2
Because the people who make them are FUSSY! They've been at it for years, and they're specially trained to notice any little detail that the majority of people who would see it would skip completely. Web designers, Digital artists, photographers. The whole lot. I have a slow connection as well, and it bugs the crap outta me too.Mad
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #3
Quote:WHY MUST I WAIT TO DOWNLOAD 60 K FOR A 100*100 PICT WHEN I CAN HAVE 640*480 IN 20K??????
The amount of compression depends entirely on the image - yours has a lot of solid colours, which compresses well, whereas a busier image would be twice that size.

I'm usually willing to sacrifice some quality for speed when designing websites, but some images simply need to look their best (screenshots for one). Then there are clients who look at their site in 640x480 and notice all the artifacts that you just can't see at 1800x1350...
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #4
Ok, you might get to 50 k for a very detatiled one; but, really, the optical difference is so small compared to the size difference: Take versiontracker: stupid small banners that take hours to load...
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 2005.04
Post: #5
Because there are stupid people out there who either:

A) Don't know how to use their image program and thus don't use any compression at all
B) think PNG is the be-all-to-end-all other image formats and uses it in every case even when GIF or JPEG would be much smaller
C) are using Flash *shiver*
D) are complete morons and are using BMPs for all their web-graphics
E) are even bigger morons and put an 800x800 image on the server and use HTML to reduce it to 100x100
F) use some combo of the above

There are two many people out there that didn't learn the basics of web-designing like the pioneers did back in the mid-90s. Back when any page over 40K was too damn big. When causing the user to scroll horizontally was a deadly sin. When there was no such thing as Flash, or banner ads, or pop-ups. When you could view the source for the page and actually be able to read and comprehend the HTML.

*sigh*
Quote this message in a reply
macboy
Unregistered
 
Post: #6
This has nothing to do with web stuff, but the graphics for my game CloneShooter are all at 75% quality or above due to the fact that they're 3D rendered, in thousands of colors, and any lower quality makes them look like 6 bit (which I know does not exist) color.
Quote this message in a reply
Tycho
Unregistered
 
Post: #7
I don't know about you, but I can see some pretty bad compression artifacts in that image.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #8
No, I don' t see them: the planet was blurred also in the original.
Quote this message in a reply
w_reade
Unregistered
 
Post: #9
What about the noisy square blocks around the edges of the ships?
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #10
No, I don' t see them.

-blind chicken Ninja-

Grin
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 2002.05
Post: #11
Quote:Originally posted by Najdorf

WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE NOT USE THIS FORMAT?????
WHY MUST I WAIT TO DOWNLOAD 60 K FOR A 100*100 PICT WHEN I CAN HAVE 640*480 IN 20K??????
THIS THING HAS MADE ME MAD...Mad


BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE IS A NEED FOR LOSSLESS COMPRESSION! YOU CANT HAVE A MASKED IMAGE IN A LOSSY COMPRESSION OR IT WONT MASK PROPERLY. ALSO SOME PEOPLE LIKE SPENDING AN EXTRA 20 SECONDS TO DOWNLOAD A GOOD QUALITY IMAGE

Sorry if the caps offended you, but sometimes I reply to all caps in all caps :envy:
Quote this message in a reply
Hog
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #12
...and because you can get higher speed connections through common telephone lines anytime.
the reason they don't raise standards on connections is because alot of people still seem to "support" slow and crappy connections.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 365
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #13
JPEG isn't always the right format if you're looking for the best possible compression. GIF (or PNG) format will work better on images with large areas of flat colour than JPEG. JPEG is really only suitable for photos or other images with continuous colour gradients.

The quality setting you should use for JPEGs depends on the content of each image. I'd normally use about 70-80%, but when the image contains lots of flat colour or shallow gradients it's a good idea to increase it a bit more to avoid highly visible artifacts on the boundary between the flat bits and the details.

Neil Carter
Nether - Mac games and comic art
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 916
Joined: 2002.10
Post: #14
my game uses tiffs as the image type of choice... surprisingly, my 1.1MB of program and images (mostly images) compress to 232k... roughly 5:1 compression... soo... yeah... booya? Rolleyes
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #15
Actually also I use tiffs for my game images; But for a web page I guess jpeg medium is ok, and reduces size a lot more
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  File Format and Compression Tests geezusfreeek 17 12,346 Dec 6, 2004 06:25 PM
Last Post: geezusfreeek
  Asset Compression doucettecd 2 3,835 Aug 27, 2002 01:01 PM
Last Post: aarku