If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Masino" wrote It's always a trade off. On my Mac, I have a utility that allows you to change the exact percentage of compression/loss in a jpeg. It shows you a before and after sample of the image, so you can see how bad the image gets while adjusting the percentage. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ While we are already hopelessly off topic...g I have a question along these lines. Here is the situation. I have some totally amazing shots of an airshow that I want to send to Jay to put on his web site. There are movies of really "stupid" AoA's by a Super Hornet *crawling* across the sky, afterburner passes at night just off the beach, and pressure/vapor waves were common that day, as conditions were just right, ect. Most are QuickTime movies, and some windows media files, and some stills in JPG. What do I need to do to reduce these to a size that is reasonable for people to download from his page. What do you (and others) consider to be reasonable? I realize that the JPG's are do-able for dialup at a reasonable size, but that the movies will primarily be viewed by people with high speed connections, or by people that have plenty of time on their hands. g These will be converted on an XP machine, with a 2 megahertz processor, and a cable modem. I am somewhat competent, but by no means a wiz. What is the program to use, and how? Would anyone want to take a crack at this one? Thanks in advance. -- Jim in NC |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What do I need to do to reduce these [cool movies and pix]
to a size that is reasonable for people to download from his page. First question is how much... and the answer depends on where on the site it is. A cool pic that is its own page (with caption maybe), and the link to it specifies what it is (thumbnail) and how big it is (text indicating size) can be as huge as necessary to preserve image quality. Those going to that page will =want= to see the picture in all its glory and be willing to wait. The problem pics are the ones that are mere window dressing on a page where people come for information. For movies, you should offer the big version and a compressed version (compatible with quality) under similar circumstances (full disclosure, separate page). Having said that, to the original question I'm afraid my answer is not all that helpful. You need "appropriate compression software", which for pictures can be almost any image processing program (like what came with a digital camera or scanner), and for movies I can't answer specifically since I don't do digital movies. But my point is that not all pictures need to have the life squeezed out of them. Only gratuitous eye candy does. Jose -- Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FYI from those of us with really slow connections & old PCs (486 w/28.8): it
loaded in just over 20 seconds. However, the text came up in less than 10 with the picture downloading and painting the rest of the time. The Welcome page took a minute and a half to completely load. Most of that was waiting for the little pics and the navigation links. I don't think you have to worry about it taking too long for anyone if that's all it takes on this old bird. It all looks good. I also checked the Theme Suites page (a couple minutes with all the pics) and noticed that you changed your navigation links to list the Suites. Since you already have links in the pictures, you might want to keep a standard set of links on the left so people can get right to those. One other small change I'd suggest is putting a couple of the Navigation links on the Home Page, maybe "Theme Suites" and "Rates" (Reservations when you add that online), for those who may want to jump direct. Lastly, to give a little bit better look, try some other fonts besides Time Roman. Now if only I can swing a trip out that way. Thanks, Dan Jay Honeck wrote: Okay, here's the newly refurb'd site: www.AlexisParkInn.com I haven't had time to do all the text editor clean-up, but: a) The counter is gone. b) The main picture is smaller on the flash page. c) I've eliminated a bunch of superfluous pictures on the second page (which used to be the home page...) It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" writes:
Jay Honeck wrote: It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... With that in mind, you might give some thought to the order in which the menu items appear. Even better, don't use graphics for the menu items at all. Use CSS for the menu backgrounds and mouse-overs if you really wnat them. d. -- PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
b) The main picture is smaller on the flash page. Why do you bother with a "splash" page? It doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose to me. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
... Cthulhu in 2005! Why wait for nature? Snicker. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you bother with a "splash" page? It doesn't seem to serve a useful
purpose to me. For the 70% of Americans still cursed with dial-up connections, it gets them "in the door" before they can get frustrated. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
Why do you bother with a "splash" page? It doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose to me. For the 70% of Americans still cursed with dial-up connections, it gets them "in the door" before they can get frustrated. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" I think the analogy that may be better is that the splash lets one now see the door. Unless there are a few more links on the splash page, all one can do is knock and wait for the door to open (click to the real home page to load). Personally, I don't think there's that much of a problem with the home page even for dial-ups except it would load quicker with fewer picks. It isn't any longer than Amazon.com, which is probably a good way to compare speed of loading to any page you do. People are used to waiting that long or a little more if they are really interested. Thanks, Dan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Part 135 Question - Weather Reporting requirement | G Farris | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 21st 04 11:05 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Stiffness of finished Carbon Fiber part | RKT | Home Built | 3 | April 8th 04 02:00 PM |
FWD: Look at this internet patch for Microsoft Internet Explorer | Charles S | Home Built | 15 | October 2nd 03 08:08 PM |
Millionaire at 31... on the Internet. Listen to how he's doing it. | ower | Home Built | 0 | August 2nd 03 10:23 AM |