Dee's CD Q and A Column Updated 11 March 2004 | ||||
Do you have a question? | I'm here to help! | Useful Links: | ||
I'm frequently asked questions either in the USENET
newsgroup, alt.fashion.crossdressing, or in the
Transchat.sister.org Chat Room, The Pink Room, which deserve
a more comprehensive answer than either of those
venues permit.
I've created this set of pages to contain those
questions, and their answers.
|
My Main Page: |
|||
Please E-Mail me with your questions! | ||||
Sue, a San Diego friend, sent me the following e-mail:
Hello Dee -
Just wanted to pass on trivia about images.
Looked up your web page - I've seen it before but never connected the
pics with the person
- very nice web site, but who is the nice looking girl in all the
pics???
Noted on your front (web) page the GIF vs JPG image size.
Apparently when editing, often images not using a proprietary image
format use TIFF, as
the image is virtually loss less when editing or resizing.
The TIFF, when zipped, will compress noticeably, so when uncompressed,
expands likewise
noticeably.
The GIF format is another which compresses / decompresses noticeably
when zipped, and
unfortunately, is best used with only two colors or less; exceeding
that color count
drastically increases GIF file size.
To feel "good", take a GIF image with a high color count, zip it and
compare file sizes -
the compression level will seem impressive; the same is the case with
TIFF files (TIF).
Then to feel "bad", take a JPG image, zip it and notice the near or at
zero compression
factor. That is why I invariably use images in the JPG format.
Sweet dreams
Sue xxx
My experience completely supports Sue's comments, and
it is sometimes exasperating to watch a relatively small
graphic take significant download time, and it can be a
problem if your site ISP storage limits are restrictive.
My digital camera takes 3MPixel photos, and in a JPEG
format with the camera's own compression, these pictures
take about 1Mbyte, on average. They tend to vary from
0.5Mbyte to 1.2 Mbyte, with pictures of clouds in the sky
over a snowy field (not many details)
taking less, and a closeup of the forest
where you can see the trees and branches (more details)
takes more.
After you've loaded the pictures into your computer,
experiment with the picture software that came with your
camera or scanner -- you don't need to be an Adobe
PhotoShop whiz kid for this.
Things you can do with the pictures:
For most Internet purposes, 4-6 inches, or somewhere
around 360 pixels wide should be quite adequate.
If you want to have a larger, more detailed picture
available for viewing, make a link to bring it up after
showing the smaller version.
I suspect you'll find that medium quality or compression
saves a lot of disk space and hardly can be distinguished
from the original. With too much compression, some of the
fine details you want will begin to get lost.
That means you want the next higher quality setting or
less compressed setting.
As specific examples of this process, I took a single
picture I was preparing, cropped it and otherwise adjusted
it as I would prefer, and then saved it with four different
JPEG compression levels, (Best, High, Medium, Low Quality)
as provided by the my standard camera software.
Here's the result:
I cannot tell the difference on my display among
these four pictures... Clearly there isn't much
visible difference here, so why not use the picture
with a lot less size. The "MEDIUM" version is the
one I generally pick because it saves most of the
space and bandwidth. Probably if I were a purist,
I'd have chosen the "LOW" because it saves another
20%, more or less.
I hope this helps inspire you to be sensitive about the
size (in KB) of your pictures, as lots of us still don't
have the ability to get broadband connections.
If you have follow-up comments, questions or suggestions,
use the e-mail link at the top of this page, please.
BraBest32.jpg -- 320x225 -- 55K
BraHigh32.jpg -- 320x225 -- 17K
Bra32.jpg -- 320x225 -- 13K
BraLow32.jpg -- 320x225 -- 11K