Moose wrote
>So how or why, is a snap of your poor injured car 2.7 megabytes? I'm out
>at the end of the DSL range. At 768k, it was painfully slow to appear.
>I don't think web images generally need to be 16-bit and uncompressed.
>The browsers just throw away the extra bits for display. Even highest
>quality JPEG, which amounts to lossless compression, is only 700k. I
>post my best images at PS's JPEG level seven, 'cause try as I might, I
>cann't see a difference between that and higher settings. At that, your
>image would be 131k, load in a flash, and look the same in a browser.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Moose
Hey Moose, I really appreciate your concern for the well-being of my wife and
car...:)
It seems that I didn't resize the first one, the second one is 305kb. I
usually scale them down to that size. Sari, my mistake, just look at it as a
Moosification opportunity.
Boris
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|