| Author |
Web Graphics Resolution?
|
|
| webbie 2006-08-24, 10:38 pm |
| hi to all designers.
i just got my first web design contract last week.
made my first study design for my client and showed it to hime
yesterday.
his comment was ...
the graphcis are "pixelated"
when i did the graphics on ps7 using a standard crt monitor it was ok.
the source of the image has the following specs:
150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
for web" and selected
the "optimized" tab...
the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
when viewed from my desktop it looks ok but when viewed from my
client's laptop
it is "pixelated"
is there a dpi that would meet both crt & lcd monitor displays
requirements?
thanks again.
| |
| Karl Groves 2006-08-25, 3:44 am |
| "webbie" <bonnijose@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1156471278.937234.14620
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> hi to all designers.
>
> i just got my first web design contract last week.
> made my first study design for my client and showed it to hime
> yesterday.
>
> his comment was ...
>
> the graphcis are "pixelated"
>
> when i did the graphics on ps7 using a standard crt monitor it was ok.
> the source of the image has the following specs:
>
> 150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
>
> i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
> for web" and selected
>
> the "optimized" tab...
>
> the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
>
> when viewed from my desktop it looks ok but when viewed from my
> client's laptop
> it is "pixelated"
>
> is there a dpi that would meet both crt & lcd monitor displays
> requirements?
>
> thanks again.
>
>
Do you have an URL we can look at?
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by webbie
hi to all designers.
i just got my first web design contract last week.
made my first study design for my client and showed it to hime
yesterday.
his comment was ...
the graphcis are "pixelated"
when i did the graphics on ps7 using a standard crt monitor it was ok.
the source of the image has the following specs:
150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
for web" and selected
the "optimized" tab...
the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
when viewed from my desktop it looks ok but when viewed from my
client's laptop
it is "pixelated"
is there a dpi that would meet both crt & lcd monitor displays
requirements?
thanks again.
Hi
Try first changing the resolution to 72dpi and making the pixel size a bit smaller. Then select your crop and export for web. Hi-res 100% shots sometimes look fuzzy, so by making the pixel size of the image smaller after you changed the resolution you should get a better quality.
Regards
MtraX | |
| Matt Probert 2006-08-25, 10:43 pm |
| On 24 Aug 2006 19:01:19 -0700, "webbie" <bonnijose@yahoo.com> wrote:
>i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
>for web" and selected
>
>the "optimized" tab...
>
>the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
Probably a compression issue. Assuming a graphic of Jpeg encoding, the
more you compress the image, the smaller the file but also the less
the quality.
The DPI is irrelevant, this just suggest to a printer how large or
small to print the graphic.
Matt
--
A comprehensive who's who of the world's mythologies.
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/mythology.htm
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-25, 10:43 pm |
| Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
webbie <bonnijose@yahoo.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> hi to all designers.
How do you do?
> i just got my first web design contract last week.
yahaay - congratulations.
> made my first study design for my client and showed it to hime
> yesterday.
>
> his comment was ...
>
> the graphcis are "pixelated"
tell him it's a low res sampler
then spend the weekend researching and experimenting so you know
> ...
> when viewed from my desktop it looks ok but when viewed from my
> client's laptop
> it is "pixelated"
Ahh - in the absence of significant skills and experience I'd guess you
need a variety of screen types so you can be sure.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| dublinpostbox@gmail.com 2006-08-25, 10:44 pm |
| The Best thind to do is save it as a JPEG! not a GIF
| |
| dublinpostbox@gmail.com 2006-08-25, 10:44 pm |
| The Best thind to do is save it as a JPEG! not a GIF
| |
|
|
| Karl Groves 2006-08-25, 10:44 pm |
| dublinpostbox@XXXXXXXXXX wrote in news:1156503433.622380.89020
@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> The Best thind to do is save it as a JPEG! not a GIF
>
>
Not always.
It depends on what type of image it is.
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
| sir robert blake 2006-08-25, 10:45 pm |
| "webbie" <bonnijose@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1156471278.937234.14620
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> when i did the graphics on ps7 using a standard crt monitor it was ok.
> the source of the image has the following specs:
>
> 150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
>
> i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
> for web" and selected
>
> the "optimized" tab...
>
> the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
>
30k will be very pixellated for an image of 2000 by 1200 pixels.
Try using less compression in photoshop.
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-26, 6:32 am |
|
webbie wrote:
> 150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
All images that appear on your screen are 72 DPI. If you use 150 DPI,
the doc size is still specified in inches. It's possible that you are
relying on your clients Windows computer (+LCD) to resize the image to
48% of it's actual pixel size. Windows machines render using circles
and are incapable of properly resizing images without the help of
Photoshop which renders using squares (like Macs do).
Also, full color GIFs render like crap (looking pixelated) on Windows
too, but you said you used jpeg.
- Brett (www.SEOwebMarket.com)
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-27, 3:31 am |
|
Karl Groves wrote:
> dublinpostbox@XXXXXXXXXX wrote in news:1156503433.622380.89020
> @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Not always.
> It depends on what type of image it is.
Heh, it depends mostly on the colors and transparancy - not type
(unless you're talking about animation). But he's right in the fact
that GIFs render like crap on a PC. Get a Mac for graphics and use
CS2.
- Brett
http://www.onesmallbusiness.com/getamac/
| |
| Karl Groves 2006-08-27, 6:39 pm |
| "SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote in
news:1156656625.079945.7150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
> Heh, it depends mostly on the colors and transparancy - not type
> (unless you're talking about animation). But he's right in the fact
> that GIFs render like crap on a PC. Get a Mac for graphics and use
> CS2.
>
It also depends on the level of detail in the image. Jpeg is able to be
compressed further while retaining a higher level of detail. Gif is better
Of course, png is better than both, IMO, other than IE's issues with png
transparency.
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
| Karl Groves 2006-08-27, 6:39 pm |
| Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in
news:Xns982C5338E5CA5karlkarlcorecom@216.196.97.136:
> "SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote in
> news:1156656625.079945.7150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> It also depends on the level of detail in the image. Jpeg is able to
> be compressed further while retaining a higher level of detail. Gif is
> better
should have been "gif is better for line art"
>
> Of course, png is better than both, IMO, other than IE's issues with
> png transparency.
>
>
>
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-27, 6:39 pm |
|
Karl Groves wrote:
> "SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
> It also depends on the level of detail in the image. Jpeg is able to be
> compressed further while retaining a higher level of detail. Gif is better
Totally incorrect, Karl. A JPEG will always puddle fine details
(especially text) when fully compressed. Fine lines in GIFs will never
puddle; they stay perfectly crisp while only distorting colors - not
detail.
- Brett (www.SEOwebMarket.com)
| |
| Karl Groves 2006-08-27, 6:39 pm |
| "SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote in
news:1156705376.968897.277360@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
>
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
> Totally incorrect, Karl. A JPEG will always puddle fine details
> (especially text) when fully compressed. Fine lines in GIFs will
> never puddle; they stay perfectly crisp while only distorting colors -
> not detail.
>
> - Brett (www.SEOwebMarket.com)
>
Brett -
http://www.siriusweb.com/tutorials/gifvsjpg/
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-08-27, 10:32 pm |
| SEOwebMarket.com wrote
[yad]
Why do you use your site name as your handle?
SEO not working too well?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-08-27, 10:32 pm |
| SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
> - Brett (www.SEOwebMarket.com)
What's with the ugly purple background at this site?
Cool markup ...
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
Tables for layout ...
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
| |
| webbie 2006-08-29, 6:46 pm |
| hi to all who replied.
when i was at my cleints office i did a bit of spying and found out
that
all the machines that could connect to the internet used newly
purchased
lcd monitors...in short the bosses had the lcd monitors and all were
connected
by broadband dsl internet.
so knowing this, over the weekend i just increased the file size &
quality
of my jpegs to 'high' setting in ps7
uploaded it and since my client has a fast internet connection they
will
not notice the slow download of their website (i hope)
so now the graphics are crisp & clear although on average now each jpeg
file is about 150 kb.
i am still trying to find the reason why my jpegs are pixelated though?
my main solution
is to blur my images a bit before exporting to jpeg in low settings. it
kind of diminishes the "pixelated" effect...
although now i will always use a 'high' export setting.
thanks for all the replies....
cheers
webbie wrote:
> hi to all designers.
>
> i just got my first web design contract last week.
> made my first study design for my client and showed it to hime
> yesterday.
>
> his comment was ...
>
> the graphcis are "pixelated"
>
> when i did the graphics on ps7 using a standard crt monitor it was ok.
> the source of the image has the following specs:
>
> 150 dpi 2000 pixel x 1200 pixel @ approx 1.2 mb jpg
>
> i then got a portion of this graphcis and saved it in photoshop "save
> for web" and selected
>
> the "optimized" tab...
>
> the resulting image size now is less than 30k.
>
> when viewed from my desktop it looks ok but when viewed from my
> client's laptop
> it is "pixelated"
>
> is there a dpi that would meet both crt & lcd monitor displays
> requirements?
>
> thanks again.
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-29, 6:46 pm |
|
webbie wrote:
> so now the graphics are crisp & clear although on average now each jpeg
> file is about 150 kb.
I suggest under 64k (make sure they are 72 DPI), especially if there
are many of them.
> i am still trying to find the reason why my jpegs are pixelated though?
send a link to an original and your web version
| |
| Andy Dingley 2006-08-29, 6:47 pm |
|
webbie wrote:
> when i was at my cleints office i did a bit of spying
To avoid us having to do a similar level of "spying", then please tell
us the URL.
> lcd monitors...in short the bosses had the lcd monitors and all were
> connected by broadband dsl internet.
Old standards on image size and file size are no longer appropriate for
modern conditions. However this is very context dependent, so we can't
just say "Use 2000 pixel wide images and hang the file size"
> so knowing this, over the weekend i just increased the file size &
> quality of my jpegs to 'high' setting in ps7
You really do need to have a better understanding of the issues
involved than just clicking "high" in Potatoshop. Web search -- the
information is out there. Learn about the trade-offs between image size
and compression, as to how they affect quality and file size.
Also learn how the image itself (i.e. running it through PS filters
before saving) can allow your images to stay looking good even with
heavy compression applied to them.
If you're using rectangular images without transparency, then PNG is
probably a better choice than JPG. Even if you need transparency, PNG
is usually a better choice than GIF, but there are IE-compatible issues
here so do some more web searching. If you have big colourful
transparent images that need transparency, then you're still probably
better off with PNG than GIF, even if you have to jump through hoops to
make it work.
If you have any contact with Macs, then you need to read up on "Gamma"
too.
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-30, 10:46 pm |
|
Andy Dingley wrote:
> Old standards on image size and file size are no longer appropriate for
> modern conditions. However this is very context dependent, so we can't
> just say "Use 2000 pixel wide images and hang the file size"
Do you realize that 2000 pixels is two screens wide for most users?
and that no windows machine can PROPERLY resize that to fit on one
screen in a web browser?
The guy that said DPI doesn't matter = doesn't have a clue.
| |
| SEOwebMarket.com 2006-08-30, 10:46 pm |
|
Andy Dingley wrote:
> Old standards on image size and file size are no longer appropriate for
> modern conditions. However this is very context dependent, so we can't
> just say "Use 2000 pixel wide images and hang the file size"
Do you realize that 2000 pixels is two screens wide for most users?
and that no windows machine can PROPERLY resize that to fit on one
screen in a web browser?
The guy that said DPI doesn't matter = doesn't have a clue.
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-08-31, 6:43 am |
| SEOwebMarket.com wrote
>
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> Do you realize that 2000 pixels is two screens wide for most users?
> and that no windows machine can PROPERLY resize that to fit on one
> screen in a web browser?
>
> The guy that said DPI doesn't matter = doesn't have a clue.
Looks like it's Google Groups that's posting twice.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |