Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ArtMan

Further compression of small JPGs by geocaching.com

Recommended Posts

When I upload photos I limit the largest dimension to 350-400 pixels, and use a middle level of JPG compression. The result is usually a file 35-50K, which I believe is reasonable even for users with dial-up connections (including the uploader.

 

I noticed today that an image I upload in a benchmark log was significantly degraded when viewed on the site. (I was looking at the second image for HV1899.) That image as viewed by geocaching.com users, was 33,529 bytes, 605x410px in size. But the image I uploaded 350x239 with a file size of 41,105.

 

The result is that the picture as seen by the public is a 7K smaller download producing a larger image of poorer quality.

 

Seems to me that within size limits, images should be displayed as uploaded, to preserve image quality.

Share this post


Link to post

The benchmark upload does automatic resizing so that if you submit a 3 meg image, it will reduce it down to >150k (the benchmark limit, I believe). I agree that if an image is already below 150K, it should not be resized/resaved and should be left as it is.

Share this post


Link to post

The best method for benchmarks is to just upload the highest quality picture you have... let the site worry about what resolution and size it wants the image to be. icon_smile.gif In fact, I wish they'd do that to the geocaching side too - it'd save time for the poster, since there'd be no need for manual cropping or resizing - and even more importantly, it'd help the newbies be able to upload their stuff without having to ask how to resize an image under 100k in here all the time. icon_wink.gif

 

geobanana.gif

The Toe Pages

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

The best method for benchmarks is to just upload the highest quality picture you have... let the site worry about what resolution and size it wants the image to be.


 

Yeah, that will help with the bandwidth and server load problems.

 

warm.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Yeah, _that_ will help with the bandwidth and server load problems.


 

*laugh* Good point.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, because the download side is so high, we pay $0 for upload bandwidth. So upload to your heart's content!

 

And yes, we do need to add the capabilities of the benchmark site to the rest of the site. I'll bump it up on my priority list.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

I can't speak for anyone else, but resizing is the quickest thing I do in preparing a photo for uploading. I crop and do various adjustments (contrast, brightness, levels, sharpness) - all of which are much more time consuming that the resizing, which takes about 1-2 seconds.

 

Frankly, if you want me to upload full-size pictures (250-300K), I'm likely not to bother most of the time, since it'll take forever on my dial-up connection to send my usual 2-3 pictures, which in any event will eventually be stripped of most of their quality when they are posted on the site.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why not limit the site's compression to uploaded images which are either too large (e.g., > 600 px) or have a file size over X kb, and leave smaller files alone?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

And yes, we do need to add the capabilities of the benchmark site to the rest of the site. I'll bump it up on my priority list.


 

Not until you fix what I've been warning against. It is evidenced in this picture that I uploaded. The original picture that I uploaded can be viewed here.

 

It was significantly below the 150K threshold, as I think the entire pic was only 17.1K. But since it didn't meet the expected minimum of size, it added a ton of white space around it.

 

If, as Marky suggests, the upload feature does not add extra border to pics below 150K (in fact does not compress or TOUCH a pic below 150K), I have no problem with wide implementation.

 

Just don't penalize the cachers that try to limit how much server space they take up.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

 

[This message was edited by Markwell on October 25, 2002 at 02:47 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

And yes, we do need to add the capabilities of the benchmark site to the rest of the site. I'll bump it up on my priority list.


 

This reminds me of requesting a project from our IT department. I think I'm on page 27 for a project I requested three years ago.

 

Your comment made me laugh. Mine should not be considered as a complaint regarding your priorities, abilities, or performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...