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

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by spectrepjcook, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. Want to load hundreds of pics FAST...what do you recommend.
     
    spectrepjcook, Mar 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. spectrepjcook

    RSD99 Guest

    SMALL pictures.
     
    RSD99, Mar 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for
    speed?
     
    spectrepjcook, Mar 19, 2005
    #3
  4. spectrepjcook

    Eric Gill Guest

    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.
     
    Eric Gill, Mar 19, 2005
    #4
  5. spectrepjcook

    Mister Max Guest

    [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
     
    Mister Max, Mar 20, 2005
    #5
  6. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

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

    i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com)
     
    PiT, Mar 20, 2005
    #6
  7. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

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


     
    alu, Mar 21, 2005
    #7
  8. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

    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
     
    alu, Mar 21, 2005
    #8
  9. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

    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, Mar 21, 2005
    #9
  10. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

    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, Mar 21, 2005
    #10
  11. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

    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)
     
    PiT, Mar 22, 2005
    #11
  12. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

    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
     
    alu, Mar 23, 2005
    #12
  13. spectrepjcook

    paul Guest


    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, Mar 23, 2005
    #13
  14. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

    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
     
    alu, Mar 23, 2005
    #14
  15. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

    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 ...
     
    PiT, Mar 23, 2005
    #15
  16. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

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

    |-(

    PiT
     
    PiT, Mar 23, 2005
    #16
  17. spectrepjcook

    Hecate Guest

    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...
     
    Hecate, Mar 23, 2005
    #17
  18. spectrepjcook

    PiT Guest

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

    --
    PiT


     
    PiT, Mar 24, 2005
    #18
  19. spectrepjcook

    alu Guest

    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
     
    alu, Mar 24, 2005
    #19
  20. spectrepjcook

    KatWoman Guest

    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.
     
    KatWoman, Mar 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.