H.S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > Wayne Topa wrote: > > > > > But converting a jpeg to progressive somehow has the effect that the > progressive jpeg file is slightly smaller than the non-progressive one, > but the client then uses up more RAM to reconstruct the image -- not > that that will be a problem in most computers today. >
Oh. Thanks for the that info.. > > convert -quality 25 infile.jpg outfile > > > > That option got the 77K file down to 24K which is more manageable, for > > me anyway. I see no difference in the pictures but the size. > > This is a case of compression with a loss in quality. Note that you can > still have the new smaller image either as progressive or non-progressive. > I don't see that loss in quality tho. At 1280x1024 they look the same, to these old eyes anyway, and the savings in size sure is a help when you are sending images over a 26K POT line. > I am still playing around to decide what size (in pixels) images to > upload for others to view and how much quality to encode the jpegs with. > In any case, I am planning to upload the larger size images only > progressive jpegs no matter what quality I use them. All of the inages on our web site are converted with the 'quality 25' option. I find a lot of sites with images that are 100K or more just take too long to load. There are still a lot of us that live in the sticks and don't have access to anything but slow POT lines. Wayne -- There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works. _______________________________________________________ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
