How big should an embedded image be? Give your opinion.

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 48 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2452

At those sizes anything above 640 I can barely see a difference on here. No slowdown at all. Ideal size to link your full size one off, should you want to see the full fat version.

Barkuti
Barkuti's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 02/19/2014 - 14:46
Posts: 5640
Location: Alhama de Murcia, Spain

Honestly speaking, image weight is what really matters. However, I do not think you need to sacrifice image quality the way you are doing it. Going back to the opening post here, at the end of it jeff51 posted an image with a whopping ≈24.16MP and 29.14MiB of weight. Compared to its scaled down previous version of ≈2.8MP (2048 × 1367) and just 510.3KiB, the difference is enormous.

I think you should set the minimum image quality you aim to show, and abide to it. A satisfactory balance of resolution, quality and weight can always be found. I do not meant to say that close to 3MP and barely above 500KB of wheight isn't enough, it can be pretty satisfactory, but spending a few MB in an image could also be pretty acceptable. The pictures I usually take with my smartphone range between 9 to 13MP and often weigh under 2MB, for example.

Please avoid fully quoting lenghty posts, namely with nested quotes. Trim quotes down to the essential. Helps with neatness and legibility. Thanks.

The human mind, and its programming, is at the forefront of a particular battle of The Light vs evil dark forces. Nearly every human being on this beautiful planet “Earth” has some sort of negative mind programming in its mind. And you better take care of your mind programming, or someone else will in this wicked world.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 59 sec ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Noticeable improvement at 1600, not so much past that.
Download speed is not a concern for me at all.

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Online
Last seen: 4 min 47 sec ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 19753
Location: Palm Desert CA ~ West Coast is the best coast

Barkuti wrote:

Enjoying a good internet connection is very affordable nowadays

Some people do not have access to a good internet connection, no matter how much money they have.

I have satellite internet, which is the worst kind of broadband available, and sometimes my internet chokes on multi-megabyte images.

Sadly, satellite internet is my best option available.

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1684
Location: Middle of Texas

The LT1 shot I picked because it needs a lot of detail to look good.
Here are some examples of closeups that do not need the same level of detail.

How do these look to you as far a clarity?
And again tell us what you are browsing on.

End Cap. One is an 800p link. The Max size allowed at CPF.
The other is a 1600p link.
Can you see a difference?

Instructions: 1024p Link. What I often use for not full width images.
Look sharp to you?

All the Best,
Jeff

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1684
Location: Middle of Texas

And one last question.
How fast is your download and upload speed?

Test it at:
Use the ones that Barukuti suggests below.

Thanks again,
Jeff

Barkuti
Barkuti's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 02/19/2014 - 14:46
Posts: 5640
Location: Alhama de Murcia, Spain

jeff51 wrote:

How do these look to you as far a clarity?
And again tell us what you are browsing on.

End Cap. One is an 800p link. The Max size allowed at CPF.
The other is a 1600p link.
Can you see a difference?

I am right now browsing with Android Opera Beta 59.0.2926.59042 but, tell us what's the point in asking please.

Of course I can see a difference, mainly if I download or open the images in new browser windows (a very likely thing for me).

Please avoid fully quoting lenghty posts, namely with nested quotes. Trim quotes down to the essential. Helps with neatness and legibility. Thanks.

The human mind, and its programming, is at the forefront of a particular battle of The Light vs evil dark forces. Nearly every human being on this beautiful planet “Earth” has some sort of negative mind programming in its mind. And you better take care of your mind programming, or someone else will in this wicked world.

Barkuti
Barkuti's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 02/19/2014 - 14:46
Posts: 5640
Location: Alhama de Murcia, Spain

jeff51 wrote:

How fast is your download and upload speed?

Test it at:
https://www.speedtest.net/

Worst speed test I've ever seen. It tries to connect me to a nearby server, which is lame, and uses JavaShite.

For proper speed testing sites, also offering advanced test configuration, I recommend the following:

In my opinion the overall quality of an internet connection is responsibility of the provider “no matter what”, as they're responsible for negotiating the quality of all the sub-networks the traffic has to go through.

Please avoid fully quoting lenghty posts, namely with nested quotes. Trim quotes down to the essential. Helps with neatness and legibility. Thanks.

The human mind, and its programming, is at the forefront of a particular battle of The Light vs evil dark forces. Nearly every human being on this beautiful planet “Earth” has some sort of negative mind programming in its mind. And you better take care of your mind programming, or someone else will in this wicked world.

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1684
Location: Middle of Texas

Barkuti wrote:

jeff51 wrote:

How do these look to you as far a clarity?
And again tell us what you are browsing on.

End Cap. One is an 800p link. The Max size allowed at CPF.
The other is a 1600p link.
Can you see a difference?


I am right now browsing with Android Opera Beta 59.0.2926.59042 but, tell us what’s the point in asking please.


Of course I can see a difference, mainly if I download or open the images in new browser windows (a very likely thing for me).


All three pics look good on my 1920p wide windows laptop and my 13” android.
I think different platforms may interpolate the images differently. Or the pixel size/density on the device may be making a difference.

I’d really like to hear from more Mac users, as the one comment seems to indicate that perhaps on a Mac, the smaller images look better than on a windows platform.

My 13” android tablet seems to give more apparent sharpness than my Windows laptop.

But I really should have asked as the second part, what is the display resolution of your screen?
And perhaps more important, what is the width of the browsing window you use to look at the BLF?

For example at home, I mostly use a full width 1920×1080 window, so the actual useful pixels is that, minus the adds at the side.
On the Tablet, I usually zoom in so the POST is the full width of the screen as held vertically.
At work, I have a three screen setup. And usually the browsing window takes up maybe 1/2 or a bit more of a 4K screen.

BTW, your comments on image res were informative.
Thanks again.
All the Bet,
Jeff

Scallywag
Scallywag's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 23 hours ago
Joined: 01/11/2018 - 22:23
Posts: 2458
Location: Ohio, United States

Barkuti wrote:

jeff51 wrote:

How fast is your download and upload speed?

Test it at:
https://www.speedtest.net/

Worst speed test I've ever seen. It tries to connect me to a nearby server, which is lame, and uses JavaShite.

For proper speed testing sites, also offering advanced test configuration, I recommend the following:

In my opinion the overall quality of an internet connection is responsibility of the provider “no matter what”, as they're responsible for negotiating the quality of all the sub-networks the traffic has to go through.

200/10 testing full-speed at both of those. Of course it also tests full-speed on fast.com and speedtest.net *shrug*
BlueSwordM
BlueSwordM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2017 - 12:34
Posts: 6615
Location: Canada

Honestly, what matters the most is actually how much you can compress down your image using various codecs.

Something like uncompressed PNGs will not do all that well, but compressed with something like ECT will squeeze some nice efficiency out of an image. This is lossless compression.

Then you have WebP, which has 3 modes: lossless, near-lossless, and lossy. The lossless mode is currently the best all around lossless image codec, near-lossless is your best bet for optimal quality at a nicely reduced file size vs lossless, and lossy is lossy of course.

You then have JPEG too, which can be compressed nicely using something like Mass Image Compressor(based on libjpeg turbo) or Pingo(all around closed source GUI based image compressor).

My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs Gen 3:
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/67401
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547

Pages