Hei, Regarding the jpg compression, we did some testing along with our customers press buereu's (I think thats the name, the ones that do all the prints and designs the logoes and such). Here we did som testing on the images and the quality.
What we experienced was that if we converted the images to JPG with a quality of 10 it was good enough for most people. I however still use 11 just to be safe. (We are ofcourse talking about >300DPI images) So there you have it, quality 10 is still good enough quality for print. However - be aware of another stupid fact - people expecting high resolution downloads wont download a 4-5mb jpg image, since it cant (?) be good enough quality... They are simply expecting a 50MB tif image since this is what they are working with normally. This is infact a huge problem! So much depending on you customers, but saving as a jpg should be just fine. -- -- Kim Steinhaug ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are 10 types of people when it comes to binary numbers: those who understand them, and those who don't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- www.steinhaug.com - www.easywebshop.no - www.webkitpro.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Galen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Jun 12, 2004, at 4:36 PM, Kim Steinhaug wrote: > > > well, there are formats that have impressed me. The Mpg-4 format > > which requires plugins all over the place is really amazing, from > > e-vue. > > They also provide a plugin atleast for IE to browse the images. > > > > I dont know if you can compress images outside the windows platform > > however. > > > > That's a key problem. I don't touch Windows unless I have to, so I > don't primarily run it at home and my servers _never_ run it, so this > format is totally out of the running - I need to be able to > compress/decompress on *nix based machines. > > > If your looking for supreme quality however, you would need to stay > > away from the lossy formats and probably go for TIFF which is a great > > format and is also supported by any major software. PNG however is > > abit "strange", woudnt sendt PNG images to a publisher... > > > > > > You could ZIP the TIF images on the HD to same space, you often > > get good results on this. This would also make the downloads better > > for the user, and since all the browsing online would use thumbnails > > you > > dont need to waste CPU do depack the images, since you all users > > can depack a ZIP file (thats the least you would expect from a user > > that > > purchase a High resolution image). > > I've experimented, PNG is notably better than ZIP for compressing image > material. PNG retains 100% quality and offers the smallest file sizes > around in a file that can be read by almost any system (i.e. all > half-recent browsers, photoshop, most other graphics applications, > etc). There's no reason I can't also offer a TIFF file, but I'll > primarily route the user to the PNG file because it's simply the > smallest download yet retains 100% quality and is a completely "free" > format. > > > > > Ive created such systems myself, and my sollution was another : > > Plug in a new harddrive. We save the images as jpg, tif, eps, ai or > > whatever > > the original image was created as, and create thumbnails at various > > resolutions in high compressed jpg for fast browsing. Often I tend to > > ZIP the lossless images aswell, but then again I dont need to since HD > > isnt > > a problem atleast in my case. > > > > I have a similar system implemented with thumbnails and caching and all > sorts of things. Works great. But hard drive space is a major concern, > so I have to be more conservative with the hi-res versions. > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Well, it's good to know that somebody else works with this sort of > thing. Although I was really hoping to hear from someone who's worked > with JPEG 2000 lossless (much higher than PNG image compression ratio!) > via ImageMagick or something similar to that. Or perhaps any other > interesting solutions people have come up with that beat PNG for > compression. More thoughts anybody? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
