Re: Picture not showing correctly

On 19 joulu, 18:45, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> mkarja wrote:
> > The image files are on my computer and when I open them in some
> > image viewer app they are fine, so I don't "upload" them anywhere,
> > I've just copied them to the directory. Oh, and it's windows machine.
>
> > A friend of mine suggested that the images are too big, that the
> > server
> > timesout when it tries to load them.
> > The images are quite big, around 3 megs, but they should still load.
> > It really doesn't take that much time to load up the page, when I open
> > the site in browser from my own computer.
> > You are right though about that it sounds like they just stop loading.
>
> Yep, a timeout error. Hmm 3Mb kind'a big for the web
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> -------------------
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

I resized one image file to 50% of it's original size and still won't
load
completely. It does load more of the picture. This time it loads
about
half of the picture and then the rest is grey. The size of the
resized
image is only 138 kb, so that should load.
It kinda sounds like a timeout issue, but that image file is so small
that it should load nicely. I put TimeOut option in the apache
configuration file and set it to 600 seconds, but it didn't help at
all.

- miKa

Re: Picture not showing correctly

In article
>,
mkarja wrote:

> On 19 joulu, 18:45, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
> > mkarja wrote:
> > > The image files are on my computer and when I open them in some
> > > image viewer app they are fine, so I don't "upload" them anywhere,
> > > I've just copied them to the directory. Oh, and it's windows machine.
> >
> > > A friend of mine suggested that the images are too big, that the
> > > server
> > > timesout when it tries to load them.
> > > The images are quite big, around 3 megs, but they should still load.
> > > It really doesn't take that much time to load up the page, when I open
> > > the site in browser from my own computer.
> > > You are right though about that it sounds like they just stop loading.
> >
> > Yep, a timeout error. Hmm 3Mb kind'a big for the web
> >
> > --
> > Take care,
> >
> > Jonathan
> > -------------------
> > LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
>
> I resized one image file to 50% of it's original size and still won't
> load
> completely.

Resize it how? There are a number of things you can do to get the
thing to be suitable for the web. One of them is not to go bigger
than anyone can see on their screens. Mostly, to be generous,
that means not bigger than 1000px wide and not more than about
800 high. Better to hold such a size in reserve though only for
those wanting so big (you have a link and tell people what is
going on). Biggest *surprise* to folks should be about 800 wide,
600 high. That is one thing, a big determinate of file size but
only one.

There is then the question of how to prepare or compress. The end
result should, unless the user is requesting more, be not more
than about 120K (to be generous) and better altogether to be
under 60K for requested enlargements for which you do not provide
details to the user.

It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
What possible benefits could there be. One would need a screen
the size of a wall to see it.

--
dorayme

Re: Picture not showing correctly

dorayme wrote:
>
> It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
> One would need a screen the size of a wall to see it.

Um, there is no relationship between the dimensions of an image and the
number of bytes. I can make a full screen size image that's less than
2KB. Likewise, a 100x200px image can be several hundred KB in size.

--
Berg

Re: Picture not showing correctly

In article <5sv93dF1afqg9U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> >
> > It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
> > One would need a screen the size of a wall to see it.
>
> Um,

Let me say it again then:

It is not wise - and there is no uming about it - to be loading
anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.

Let me quote myself a little from the post you reply to:

"There are a number of things you can do to get the
thing to be suitable for the web. One of them is not to go bigger
than anyone can see on their screens. ... Biggest *surprise* to
folks should be about 800 wide, 600 high. That is one thing, a
big determinate of file size but only one.

There is then the question of how to prepare or compress...
It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
What possible benefits could there be. One would need a screen
the size of a wall to see it."

(The *last sentence* was an exaggeration, of course. I was
thinking of some pictures I and others have prepared that look so
fine at 1000px across that are no more than 180px (but often much
lower) and that to maintain similar quality and show at 1.5MB at
100% would require quite a big screen)

>there is no relationship between the dimensions of an image and
>the number of bytes.

This, of course, is *almost perfectly* untrue in practice. It is
even perfectly untrue full stop.

If indeed there is no relationship between the dimensions of an
image and the number of bytes, then it should perhaps be
considered quite unusual or coincidental that people the world
over experience vastly reduced byte size of their image files
with little normal loss of quality by simply reducing the width
and height and resaving (especially if the master file worked on
is lossless)

> I can make a full screen size image that's less than
> 2KB. Likewise, a 100x200px image can be several hundred KB in
> size.

Smallest I can do for my biggest screen at 1600 by 1200 is 0.4KB.
But then it is not much of a "picture". Still an image file!

But hey, let us not fight on examples and practical day to day
grounds. That would be altogether too boring. Let us look at this
from the purest point of view.

Let us look at a graph of all the ordered pairs of images against
file size. This means specifically constructing as a prelude to
graphing, a simple 5 col table, 2 cols grouped to represent the
before and after size of images. 2 more cols to say the before
and after of byte size. And last col to give the percentage
difference in byte reduction.

What images shall we put in? Why, of course, every single pair
that has ever been worked on by anyone in internet history. That
would be a fair test, no? And it would give the lie to your
statement that there was no relationship between the dimensions
of an image and the number of bytes.

--
dorayme