Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bill Harting writes: > I'm liking how fast Anthony's photos load, > and the size of them... Thanks. By size, I assume you mean the pixel dimensions of the images. I know from site logs that most people are running 800x600 today, so that's the size I try to use for all images. For some reason, on the Web at large, most people seem to use much smaller images, often only 1/4 that size, which is far too small to correctly reproduce most photos (it works okay for photos without much detail, but a lot of photos aren't like that). As for loading time, be advised that I "preload" images on the site. The page with image N has hidden code that is already loading image N+1, so by the time you've finished looking at N and you click to the next image, it's already downloaded and pops up instantly. This works as long as you move forward through the images (I haven't bothered preloading in the opposite direction). Even with a regular modem, this speeds things up enormously, since most people will spend perhaps 10 seconds looking at an image, allowing for some or all of the preceding image to be downloaded in the background, even at dial-up modem speeds. Of course, with DSL or cable, it is much faster. The site itself has good bandwidth (unlike many gallery sites I've seen), so if you have a broadband connection it should be very fast indeed. > Wish I knew more about file size, but many times > I stop looking at on-line galleries because > the pictures load so slow... Me too, even though I have a broadband connection, also. Some small sites have only 64 Kbps of bandwidth, and that is too slow even for one broadband visitor.