Posted 20 January 2005 - 18:11
Yes Rob, I have indeed reduced the size of my pictures, to an average of about 100 kb each.
I agree with you that the number of pixels is not important for the speed, only the size of the picture in bytes, because that is what has to be transmitted over a sometimes slow connection.
translating the .jpg to a picture of however many pixels is done locally in your computer and therefore almost instant. Compression will indeed mean that detail will be lost, so a picture will get more vague, but not smaller in number of pixels. Reducing the number of pixels will make the picture sharper, but details smaller, and since they are not analogue, but digital, you cannot increase the sharpness by increasing the size then.
Anyway, I apologise to all people on dial-up connections for the temporary existence of too large picture files in this thread. It has been reduced by a factor of 4, but now there are 3 times as many pictures, so you win some, lose some. I should know how bad some threads can be on dial-up, because I had such a connection until last November. Remarkable how quickly you get used to better performance. I also agree that broadband is still relatively expensive, so it is just no option for people on a tighter budget, and we have to take care of them as well.
On the other hand, this thread is known as a "photo" thread, so if you have trouble with large sized posts, you are warned in advance that this one will probably be very slow, so take a look only when phonecalls are cheap, and you have enough time to spare to be patient.