Any rcomendation for a FAST loading phot web page software? What do you use?

Want to load hundreds of pics FAST...what do you recommend.

 

SMALL pictures.

 

I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for
speed?

 

wrote in 4ax.com:

No, it *really is* the total size of the transmitted files that matters,
and the images are the bulk of that.

Small pictures.

 

[posted and mailed]

To spell it out, make them 500 pixels wide AND save as JPEG at a low
Quality number. Some say saving for web gives a smaller file, but I
haven't seen that.

On my web site, the photos are no larger than 500 px high or 780 wide,
and I keep the size of each file under 100 KB. You may prefer different
numbers. - Max

--
MisterMax

http://buten.net/max/
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco,
Mt Holly, Myanmar (new), Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand (new),
Tour de France.

http://pbase.com/mistermax - Shadows and Reflections

 

I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com)

 

re: photoshop "Save for Web" - byte for byte, it produces higher quality
images than Save As .jpg
-alu

 

Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results
than Photoshop's Save For Web?
Please elaborate - would love to know more...
-alu

 

hi alu,

specs question wasn't the highest or best compression - the question was
about a fast way to show a huge number of pics. therefore i'm still
recommending these two proggies.

but nevertheless i've tested ps' save for web -> better compression. thanks
for the info ...

PiT

 

PiT
probably beating a dead horse here but i'm quite confused - showing large
numbers of pics quickly would require smaller file sizes right?
so given you would like a certain image quality, better compression is the
answer, no?
or are you saying irfanview / xnview can create smaller file sizes than ps
by saving to a lower quality than ps is capable of?
or are you saying you can batch process them faster using these two apps??
please explain.
thanks
-alu

 

alu,
i understand spectre's question as a question for possibilities to view(!) a
large number of pics fast. maybe i'm sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse ...
;o)

 

you're sittin' on the right horse, and it's still breathin'.
i understand spectre's question; it's your answer that's never been
explained.
one last try PiT, yer killin me here! how about a fill-in-the-blank?

"Irfanview and/or Xnview do __________________________ better than photoshop
which is why i (PiT) recommend them to produce jpg images for faster loading
pages."

-alu

 

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web
use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long
as you don't start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It's a
breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent
compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering
systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn't really say.

 

Paul, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
If we don't here back from PiT, I'll download the *&^%! apps, run the tests
myself., and get back to ya.
-alu

 

nice idea to test by yourself, alu

imho irfanview is my favourite app for viewing pics in a fast and
comfortable way. it starts very fast (less than one second - ps7 needs more
than 10 seconds to start on my amd2400+/1gig ram - pc) and it's easy to
handle with. via shortcut you can start a self defined image manipulation
prog like ps7 for further work with actual viewed image. it has a large
number of other gimmicks, explore them please by yourself ...

 

.... and sorry for my bad english (it isn't my native language)

|-(

PiT

 

And if you're in a money spending frame of mind, so does Fireworks and
PS definitely isn't better quality.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

what's up, alu? still testing? ;o)

--
PiT

 

I ran some tests on Irfanview and XnView...
For equivalent jpg file sizes, Irfanview produces more chroma noise and
blocking distortion than PS Save for Web.
Xn-view output is junk, the jpg quality comes nowhere near either of the
other apps for equivalent file sizes.
Just for fun, I also tested Advanced JPG Compressor by winsoftmagic, which
has dozens of compression options.
PS Save for Web is still the winner.

-alu

 

It seems to me the question was about fast loading website not one image.
To save images for web I use the "save for web" in PS and Image Ready.
But if you put a bunch of even small photos on your webpage it will still
take time to load.

If you want to show a lot of images in a website I say use Macromedia Flash.
I made 2 websites with multiple images (over 100). I made the first site
using the Automate webpage in Photoshop. It's a nice looking site but loads
very slowly. I remade the site using MM Flash and it's much faster to load
all the pictures.