Also...

Posted by Zippy from sa-63-249-66-14.cruzio.com on July 25, 2001 at 10:15:50:

In Reply to: Maybe... posted by Zippy on July 25, 2001 at 10:05:37:

One more possibility: using the same example ("novel cover.jpg"), 157 x 265 is not a true-scale reduction of the original 602 x 914 image. I opened your original image in Photoshop, and constraining proportions, I tried to scale it down to 157 x 265. The closest I could get was 157 x 238... so the browser is displaying this image in a slightly distorted manner (it's taller than it should be in relation to its width), which may also affect the displayed image quality.

Regards,
Zippy

: it's because you're letting the browser scale-down the images. For example: your pic "novel cover.jpg" is actually 602 pixels (width) x 914 pixels (height) in size. But a quick look at your source code shows that you've specified that this pic have a width of 157 pixels and a height of 265 pixels. This means the browser has to scale the image down, and browsers don't do a good job of this. If you want "novel cover.jpg" to be 157w x 265h, then scale it down in an image editing program to an actual size 157 x 265, and show it at the actual size on your web page.

: Also, a true 157 x 265 image will download faster because it's smaller. A 602 x 914 image, even if you specify a width of 157 x 265 in your source code, is STILL actually 602 x 914... in other words, the browser is downloading a 602 x 914 image, but it's displaying it at 157 x 265. (your original image is over 165K in file size; if you scaled it down yourself and save it as a smaller image, you could probably reduce the file size to less than 20K). If you do that to all your images, your entire site will download faster.

: Anyway, just a suggestion. Nice work on the site!

: Regards,
: Zippy

: : Here's the problem. The pics that I used are crystal clear in my files. They're also clear as you could want when I open the site to work on it. So, why do they display like crap when the site is viewed? I used jpeg files, the usual reccommended format for web applications. What am I doing wrong?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: One more possibility: using the same example ("novel cover.jpg"), 157 x 265 is not a true-scale reduction of the original 602 x 914 image. I opened your original image in Photoshop, and constraining proportions, I tried to scale it down to 157 x 265. The closest I could get was 157 x 238... so the browser is displaying this image in a slightly distorted manner (it's taller than it should be in relation to its width), which may also affect the displayed image quality.

: Regards,
: Zippy

: : it's because you're letting the browser scale-down the images. For example: your pic "novel cover.jpg" is actually 602 pixels (width) x 914 pixels (height) in size. But a quick look at your source code shows that you've specified that this pic have a width of 157 pixels and a height of 265 pixels. This means the browser has to scale the image down, and browsers don't do a good job of this. If you want "novel cover.jpg" to be 157w x 265h, then scale it down in an image editing program to an actual size 157 x 265, and show it at the actual size on your web page.

: : Also, a true 157 x 265 image will download faster because it's smaller. A 602 x 914 image, even if you specify a width of 157 x 265 in your source code, is STILL actually 602 x 914... in other words, the browser is downloading a 602 x 914 image, but it's displaying it at 157 x 265. (your original image is over 165K in file size; if you scaled it down yourself and save it as a smaller image, you could probably reduce the file size to less than 20K). If you do that to all your images, your entire site will download faster.

: : Anyway, just a suggestion. Nice work on the site!

: : Regards,
: : Zippy

: : : Here's the problem. The pics that I used are crystal clear in my files. They're also clear as you could want when I open the site to work on it. So, why do they display like crap when the site is viewed? I used jpeg files, the usual reccommended format for web applications. What am I doing wrong?

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]