Jump to content


Are web graphics stealing your money?


12 replies to this topic

#1 Donna

    Retired P2L Queen!

  • P2L Staff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12,330 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:B.C Canada

Posted 29 July 2005 - 10:06 PM

They might not be wearing a mask and carrying a gun, but if you've got images on your web pages then they could be costing you a lot more money than you think every time a visitor looks at one. That's because image files are typically the biggest bandwidth user on any web page. Whenever a visitor's browser is displaying an image on your site, it's actually downloading that image to the local user's hard drive. When anything gets downloaded, it uses bandwidth and bandwidth costs money.

The moral of that story is: The bigger the image the more bandwidth it consumes.

If you are hosting a popular photo gallery site, or you are an ISP with clients who have a lot of images on their sites, than it is entirely possible that most of your bandwidth is being eaten up by images!

Every good problem deserves a solution

There is a solution, however, and it's a relatively simple and easy solution at that. It's called image compression. What sounds like some sort of geek-speak is really just a simple procedure that squeezes the extra bloat out of web-hosted images without noticeably affecting their visual quality.

When an image gets compressed it naturally reduces the overall file size, and it's that file size which causes images to eat up so much bandwidth.

NOT compressing your images is a lot like leaving the water running in the sink while you brush your teeth. You're just pouring money down the drain.

The Trick to Simple, Image Compression

The key to saving wasted bandwidth and accelerating the image download process is to use automated image compression scripts that you simply install on your web server and forget about. The good ones will calculate image compression ratios on the fly and always deliver the smallest possible file size without sacrificing quality, and it will do it all by itself!

The end result is a bandwidth savings that can run as high as 50% or more on image-intensive sites. And THAT is a solution worth installing.

So whether you are an ISP who is looking to reduce the amount of bandwidth that your clients consume, or you are a webmaster who is paying way too much in bandwidth fees, the solution to expanding your wallet just could very well be compressing your images.




About the Author
Roderick Coleman is the developer of the powerful HTML/Image compressor available at http://www.optimizehosting.com . It 's a money-saving utility that ISPs can used to increase sales by giving the service to their clients, and webmasters can use to increase their site's performance, while reducing bandwidth usage.






====================

My comments to this article:
I notice everyday more and more so many have little or no idea on what image compression is. Some tutorials carry images over 1MB, well add 2 & 2 together a few 1000 view them and there goes your monthly bandwith all gone.

Display your tuts in the lowest compression you can, if they are good your going to get a lot of people viewing them. And in reality you do not need a 500kb image showing someone in photoshop where the filters are :) Use save for web and compress.

Some great tuts how to do this:

http://thedesigndump.com/tutorials2.htm

http://support.adobe.com/devsup/devsup.nsf/docs/52521.htm

http://nmc.loyola.edu/intro/design/webready.htm

Regards
Donna

#2 rc69

    PHP Master PD

  • P2L Staff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,827 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Here
  • Interests:Web Development

Posted 30 July 2005 - 05:14 PM

You'd think some of this would be common sense if you owned a website. But sadly, some people start a web site, and don't even know what letter html starts with :)

p.s. for those of you who don't know, html starts with "h" :)

#3 InFnit

    P2L Jedi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Interests:My interests are my:<br><br>iidsite - http://iid.outer-heaven.net<br>iidblog - http://iid.outer-heaven.net/blog/<br>iidcommunity - http://iid.outer-heaven.net/forums/<br>P2L - http://www.pixel2life.com

Posted 30 July 2005 - 05:58 PM

How else do peeps make a site? Without Save For Web?

#4 Genius

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 July 2005 - 07:52 PM

interesting never thought about that. thx for bring it up.

#5 Kanada

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Hockey, Music

Posted 30 July 2005 - 08:34 PM

never thought of that, thanks Donna for bringing it up :)

#6 skandalouz

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 05:22 AM

or you can just disable hotlinking snd use save for web? that will save atleast a few gigs on a big site

#7 jammie

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 37 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:58 AM

on a clients site, when we reilived the inhouse staff (who francly didnt have a clue) of the website and redesigned with compressed images and optimised PDF ect the amount of bandwidth went from just over 4.5gb a month to just under 106mb a months, meaning the extra surcharge for the bandwidth went into other things, like for example, paying the designers more ;). aside from the reasons of greed there is also a certain amout of payback from not using elephant sized images, and thats the internet will run faster and the saving in bandwidth for ALL will be huge.

the same can be said for novice net programmers who insist on using html to constrict that 1024x 779 screen shot into a 120 x 100 thumbnail, the ambility to resize images is there for a reason and that is the reason !

:D

jammie

*walks away ranting at people about bandiwidth and somthing or other*

#8 zasul

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 12:26 PM

i dont know who pays for connection bandwith these days i think this is not a problem ... and its not called steal...

#9 Jaymz

    Retired P2L Staff

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,104 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 01:24 PM

zasul, on Aug 3 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

i dont know who pays for connection bandwith these days i think this is not a problem ... and its not called steal...
Actually most people pay for bandwidth, it's standard in the hosting industry to set a bandwidth limit. It's called stealing if the images are taking your money and you don't want them to, now isn't it? Hmm?

#10 jedisentry

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Near Rochester, NY
  • Interests:GFX, TUTS, VIDEO GAMES, COMPUTERS

Posted 03 August 2005 - 03:23 PM

thanks for the info donna :)

#11 Cerenza

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Graphic Designing and WoW. :)

Posted 04 August 2005 - 05:47 AM

Does Brushes count as images Donna?

#12 Vouksh

    Young Padawan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 05 August 2005 - 01:04 PM

An image is what your signature is. an image file. common extensions are .gif, .png, and .jpg all those can be compressed. PNG is probably the best option, because it can be highly compressed with little loss. Unfortunately, some people still use Internet Explorer, and IE doesn't handle PNG's very well. So your best option for interoperablity is gif. supports transperancy, and is supported by all browsers, but doesn't have the same compression quality as png.

#13 Jamie Huskisson

    Retired P2L Staff

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, UK

Posted 05 August 2005 - 01:11 PM

Vouksh, on Aug 5 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

An image is what your signature is. an image file. common extensions are .gif, .png, and .jpg all those can be compressed. PNG is probably the best option, because it can be highly compressed with little loss. Unfortunately, some people still use Internet Explorer, and IE doesn't handle PNG's very well. So your best option for interoperablity is gif. supports transperancy, and is supported by all browsers, but doesn't have the same compression quality as png.
PNG in my opinion is probably the worst format there is...

JPEG2000 looks like an amazing format, but they need to bring out a *real* plugin to save the files.. as they claiming filesizes that simply aren't true, and their plugin reduces quality greatly for very little filesize loss





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users