Look up at the header of this web site....oh it's beautiful. Props to the maker of it. I just saved it to see how big it was and it's 75kb. Is that too big for a web site? i run a cable modem, so everything loads quickly. But i worry too much about people who are not on cable and are running very slow connections like a 56k modem. What can i do to keep my file sizes low but keep my super high quality?
High Quality/Low File Size
Started by
_*phyre_st0rm_*
, May 17 2004 11:46 PM
10 replies to this topic
#2
Faken
-
- Admin
-
- 5,966 posts
Pimpmaster G
- Gender:Male
- Location:Montreal, Canada
Posted 18 May 2004 - 07:59 PM
Hey Phyre,Look up at the header of this web site....oh it's beautiful. Props to the maker of it. I just saved it to see how big it was and it's 75kb. Is that too big for a web site? i run a cable modem, so everything loads quickly. But i worry too much about people who are not on cable and are running very slow connections like a 56k modem. What can i do to keep my file sizes low but keep my super high quality?
Well this site isn't really 56K friendly, but I've spoken to a couple of people running 56K, and they said it wasn't actually too bad at all. Don't forget, once they load the logo once, it's cached, so it's not really a big deal. I'm working on another tutorial site that will be very low in graphics, so it'll be a faster site to use should you so be inclined.
As for smaller graphics, the only way to do it is to save your graphics as compressed JPGs. The image quality WILL suffer though as you increase compression. I find anything past 10 or 20 starts looking a bit worse for ware. But either way, you can't have both... it's either super high quality or low image size. But combining a sensible combination of the two will still give you a fast loading, and great looking website.
Faken
#3
_*Archangel_*
_*Archangel_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 May 2004 - 12:58 PM
Actually - I run on 56k connection at home and it really doesn't take that long to load. Well worth the wait!
#4
_*phyre_st0rm_*
_*phyre_st0rm_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 May 2004 - 01:18 PM
Ok, so what is TOO LONG? the site i'm workin on i think said was 100kb (for everything) and took 20 seconds to load on a 56k modem. I'm all about speed...to me, 30 + seconds is too long for a site to load. of course...there are quite a few ppl now switching over to faster connections. i would love to be able to create a site and not worry about file size...the world will get there one day 
#6
_*sEVEn_*
_*sEVEn_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:00 PM
no one should be on a 56k anymore ;P
THAT WAS so 5 YRS AGO ;>
naw when i make a site I usually try to keep the smaller link pics and whatnot under 4k and the larger pics under 50k... if I need a great looking crisp image (as in Faken's header) I will allow up to 120, but not too many on one page =]
I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a slow loading site and closed it down never to return....
Not on high speed anyhow... if I was on 56k i'd be more forgiving, but not on cable.
If it NEEDS to have large graphics on it... post a warning on the link so people will wait for it....
77k is not large if it only happens once or twice a page...
did i go off on a tangent here?
THAT WAS so 5 YRS AGO ;>
naw when i make a site I usually try to keep the smaller link pics and whatnot under 4k and the larger pics under 50k... if I need a great looking crisp image (as in Faken's header) I will allow up to 120, but not too many on one page =]
I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a slow loading site and closed it down never to return....
Not on high speed anyhow... if I was on 56k i'd be more forgiving, but not on cable.
If it NEEDS to have large graphics on it... post a warning on the link so people will wait for it....
77k is not large if it only happens once or twice a page...
did i go off on a tangent here?
#7
_*andycole_*
_*andycole_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 May 2004 - 02:04 AM
I would never go back to 56k if my life depended on it. Well... I would cos that's just silly, but.....er...well, you know what I mean.
The problem is, even with high speed internet, I still get some sites that take forever to load. I don't know why but it's usually sites with forums on. I know for a fact that picture sizes aren't always the problem when it comes to loading times.
The problem is, even with high speed internet, I still get some sites that take forever to load. I don't know why but it's usually sites with forums on. I know for a fact that picture sizes aren't always the problem when it comes to loading times.
#8
_*DarkRain_*
_*DarkRain_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 July 2004 - 01:59 AM
When i make i site i dont care about the file size, most people are generally on a faster connection now, also the server the website is hosted on can make some difference.
Long Live 56k!
Long Live 56k!
#9
_*iMp3rIAL_*
_*iMp3rIAL_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 July 2004 - 10:39 AM
I run Cable, with Comcast. And I never have to wait for any sites to load. I recommend comcast because it's fasy and easy. I don't have to wait for porn sites to load eithr 
#10
_*DarkRain_*
_*DarkRain_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 July 2004 - 03:33 PM
lool, whats fasy . Im on 512k atm, but it should soon go to 1mb if i pay my dad the extra cash
. Im on 512k atm, but it should soon go to 1mb if i pay my dad the extra cash
#11
_*FaultySanity_*
_*FaultySanity_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 July 2004 - 08:29 AM
If your dealing with Photoshop/Image ready/Flash, you want to optimize it. This is the key to what your talking about.Look up at the header of this web site....oh it's beautiful. Props to the maker of it. I just saved it to see how big it was and it's 75kb. Is that too big for a web site? i run a cable modem, so everything loads quickly. But i worry too much about people who are not on cable and are running very slow connections like a 56k modem. What can i do to keep my file sizes low but keep my super high quality?
File > Save optimized as
Select something like:
Jpeg High or Maximum
Quality 70-85
Optimizing images works wonders for bandwidth and loading times.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
