4 ms·

1 MB is even too big for an image. Most 1 MB images won't suffer quality loss when viewed on typical devices when they are 100 KB or even 60 KB. And they shou

by chubot 4y ago

1 MB is even too big for an image. Most 1 MB images won't suffer quality loss when viewed on typical devices when they are 100 KB or even 60 KB. And they should definitely be minimized for mobile devices I'd say that the only way a single web page should be 1 MB is if it has 10 or more images, which of course can be useful.

bombcar 4y ago
The number of massive 5+ MB images I've been able to shave down tremendously by doing no more than using https://tinypng.com https://tinypng.com is absolutely frightening ...
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  Were all of those images transparent? As in, did they even need to be PNGs?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Many were JPGs (the "site" is unfortunately named based on originally being used for PNG mainly) - but yes, many were not transparent but were deemed to need to be PNG because it is "better". Made even more headway on some of the ones we could control by using SVG instead (images that are basically text shouldn't be PNG or JPG).
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> typical devices If you need to design for today, that's fine. If you're designing for the future, well, already pushing 4K. Your "looks just fine on most devices" image is gonna look like an eye-squintingly tiny compressed-to-hell JPEG from 1992 in a decade or two. Think about music. "Sounds good on most devices (earbuds at the time)" caused an entire generation of music to be mixed to shit. You expect everyone to remaster? My own website doesn't qualify because I have gallery pages with multiple 1MB works of art. I hope my works can be appreciated in the future, on better devices. If that excludes me from a tiny ring of web designers essentially running an ad hoc demoscene competition for who can make the prettiest page in 1MB, so be it.
- chubot 4y ago
  But (file) compression doesn't hurt the quality! At least not compared with post-production. An entire generation of music sounds like crap BOTH before AND after compression with mp3. e.g. Recent RHCP or Metallica records are squashed to hell if you whether you are listening to them on 1411 kbps CD or 128 kbps MP3. I'm not as familiar with image production, but if you think 100 KB is too small, then 200 KB is likely fine, and it's still many times smaller. Or make it 500 KB -- it depends highly on the image. I think the problem is that the way to use compression effectively is unfortunately not common knowledge and not really documented (maybe someone here has a good link)

by chubot 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

The number of massive 5+ MB images I've been able to shave down tremendously by doing no more than using https://tinypng.com https://tinypng.com is absolutely frightening ...

vanderZwan 4y ago
Were all of those images transparent? As in, did they even need to be PNGs?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Many were JPGs (the "site" is unfortunately named based on originally being used for PNG mainly) - but yes, many were not transparent but were deemed to need to be PNG because it is "better". Made even more headway on some of the ones we could control by using SVG instead (images that are basically text shouldn't be PNG or JPG).

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

> typical devices If you need to design for today, that's fine. If you're designing for the future, well, already pushing 4K. Your "looks just fine on most devices" image is gonna look like an eye-squintingly tiny compressed-to-hell JPEG from 1992 in a decade or two. Think about music. "Sounds good on most devices (earbuds at the time)" caused an entire generation of music to be mixed to shit. You expect everyone to remaster? My own website doesn't qualify because I have gallery pages with multiple 1MB works of art. I hope my works can be appreciated in the future, on better devices. If that excludes me from a tiny ring of web designers essentially running an ad hoc demoscene competition for who can make the prettiest page in 1MB, so be it.

chubot 4y ago
But (file) compression doesn't hurt the quality! At least not compared with post-production. An entire generation of music sounds like crap BOTH before AND after compression with mp3. e.g. Recent RHCP or Metallica records are squashed to hell if you whether you are listening to them on 1411 kbps CD or 128 kbps MP3. I'm not as familiar with image production, but if you think 100 KB is too small, then 200 KB is likely fine, and it's still many times smaller. Or make it 500 KB -- it depends highly on the image. I think the problem is that the way to use compression effectively is unfortunately not common knowledge and not really documented (maybe someone here has a good link)