Thumbnail gif Question.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by DLU, Dec 19, 2008.

  1. DLU

    DLU Guest

    How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?
    Expression web will automatically make a thumbnail but it does not seem
    to reduce the program size. The Clover valley photo on my site is the
    one I am trying to reduce. The gif is 364.37 KB, the gifs above it are
    as little as 5.36 KB.


    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DLU

    dorayme Guest

    In article <e666$494b2147$439f9013$>,
    DLU <> wrote:

    > How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?


    You open it in an image editor, you reduce the pixel dimensions to
    thumbnail size and then you open the other barrel and compress it or
    format it (jpg or png or gif). I have seen muscular pictures totally
    humbled and reduced to tearful modesty after being thus shot.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DLU wrote:
    > How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?


    By reducing pixel dimensions, reducing number of colors in palette, not
    dithering, or a combination of all of these factors.

    > Expression web will automatically make a thumbnail but it does not seem
    > to reduce the program size.


    Is Expression web actually resampling the image or just constraining
    with HTML width & height attributes?

    > The Clover valley photo on my site is the one I am trying to reduce.


    What site? You have not supplied a URL!

    > The gif is 364.37 KB,


    Ugh!

    > the gifs above it are as little as 5.36 KB.


    Maybe GIF is not the *best* format, JPG has much better compression and
    works best with "photographic" full color images...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 19, 2008
    #3
  4. DLU

    DLU Guest

    Bergamot wrote:
    >
    > DLU wrote:
    >> How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?

    >
    > Load it into your graphics editor and resize it. If you don't have one
    > there are freebies you can download, 3 that come to mind are irfanview,
    > xnview and gimp.
    >
    >> Expression web will automatically make a thumbnail but it does not
    >> seem to reduce the program size. The Clover valley photo on my site
    >> is the one I am trying to reduce. The gif is 364.37 KB, the gifs above
    >> it are as little as 5.36 KB.

    >
    > FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content. It only
    > supports 256 colors. The quality will be poor and the file size (in KB)
    > unnecessarily large. Stick with jpg. A properly dimensioned and
    > compressed jpg will be a fraction of the gif size, and better quality.
    >

    I figured it out with MS Image composer.
    I can make any of the formats, just have never played around with it
    before. I think all the auto function does is constrain the dimensions
    although it had to reduce the pixel count to get to the 346 KB.

    I forgot to post the URL:
    http://home.surewest.net/bikesac/bikesac/



    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #4
  5. DLU

    DLU Guest

    Bergamot wrote:
    >
    >
    > FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content. It only
    > supports 256 colors. The quality will be poor and the file size (in KB)
    > unnecessarily large. Stick with jpg. A properly dimensioned and
    > compressed jpg will be a fraction of the gif size, and better quality.
    >

    Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image composer
    I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the difference is
    only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.

    I also set the view if you click on the image to show the full size
    original. If you are on dial up it might take a bit more time.

    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #5
  6. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 18 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:

    > Bergamot wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content. It
    >> only supports 256 colors. The quality will be poor and the file size
    >> (in KB) unnecessarily large. Stick with jpg. A properly dimensioned
    >> and compressed jpg will be a fraction of the gif size, and better
    >> quality.
    >>

    > Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image
    > composer I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the
    > difference is only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.
    >
    > I also set the view if you click on the image to show the full size
    > original. If you are on dial up it might take a bit more time.


    Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
    4.01 doctype anyway.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 19, 2008
    #6
  7. DLU

    Bergamot Guest

    DLU wrote:
    > Bergamot wrote:
    >>
    >> FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content.
    >>

    > Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image composer
    > I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the difference is
    > only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.


    It depends on the picture. Gif only supports 256 colors, so a photo with
    a limited number of colors will end up a smaller file than one with more
    variety. Either way, jpg is still overall a better choice for photos.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Dec 19, 2008
    #7
  8. DLU

    DLU Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 18 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >
    >> Bergamot wrote:
    >>>

    >
    > Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
    > 4.01 doctype anyway.
    >

    What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?

    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #8
  9. DLU wrote:
    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 18 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Bergamot wrote:
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
    >> 4.01 doctype anyway.

    > What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?
    >


    You don't.

    Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab, or
    new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link opens
    in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can ways hit
    the back button to return.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&... new window bad web design&btnG=Google Search
    why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 19, 2008
    #9
  10. DLU

    DLU Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > DLU wrote:
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>> On 18 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Bergamot wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
    >>> 4.01 doctype anyway.

    >> What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?
    >>

    >
    > You don't.
    >
    > Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab, or
    > new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link opens
    > in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can ways hit
    > the back button to return.
    >
    > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&... new window bad web design&btnG=Google Search
    >
    > why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search
    >

    A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do not
    have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open and a
    second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to most of
    them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people looking for
    information, or meeting schedules and such. Very few of them even know
    what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown someone a USENET
    group when they wanted some kind of information and they were astounded
    that such a medium even exists.

    Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in a
    second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for that.

    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #10
  11. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 19 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:

    >>>> Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a
    >>>> strict 4.01 doctype anyway.
    >>> What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?
    >>>

    >>
    >> You don't.
    >>
    >> Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab,
    >> or new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link
    >> opens in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can
    >> ways hit the back button to return.
    >>
    >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=why opening links in new window
    >> bad+web+design&btnG=Google+Search
    >>
    >> why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search
    >>

    > A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do
    > not have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open
    > and a second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to
    > most of them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people
    > looking for information, or meeting schedules and such. Very few of
    > them even know what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown
    > someone a USENET group when they wanted some kind of information and
    > they were astounded that such a medium even exists.
    >
    > Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in
    > a second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for
    > that.


    Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
    me when I say the majority of most people don't. Take me for instance.
    I went to your site to check the image you mentioned. It was pleasing
    to see that the image filesize was only around 11k. I clicked on the
    link to view the full-size image, -a nice pic, indeed. But when I
    attempted to go back, there was no back. Petulantly, I closed the
    errant window, but in my aggrieved state I accidentally double-clicked
    the mouse and also closed the first/main window as well. Now truly
    perturbed, I made a voodoo doll of you in a leotard and spent several
    hours sticking pins in the loci of what are traditionally the most
    delicate regions available to an actual living host. See?

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 19, 2008
    #11
  12. DLU wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> DLU wrote:
    >>> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>>> On 18 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bergamot wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
    >>>> 4.01 doctype anyway.
    >>> What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?
    >>>

    >>
    >> You don't.
    >>
    >> Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab, or
    >> new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link opens
    >> in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can ways hit
    >> the back button to return.
    >>
    >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&... new window bad web design&btnG=Google Search
    >>
    >> why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search
    >>

    > A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do not
    > have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open and a
    > second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to most of
    > them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people looking for
    > information, or meeting schedules and such.


    It doesn't take any sophistication to click a big button that says
    "Back"--which is more of a cue than they get from the unlabeled Close
    button in the upper right-hand corner of the window.

    > Very few of them even know
    > what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown someone a USENET
    > group when they wanted some kind of information and they were astounded
    > that such a medium even exists.


    I don't understand what their lack of awareness of Usenet has to do with
    the question at hand.

    > Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in a
    > second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for that.


    Not every place where HTML is used even *has* such a thing as "a second
    window". There are no second windows on my Windows Mobile phone, for
    example. And then, in my Firefox, a target attribute opens up another
    *tab*, not another window. A pop-up blocker may also prevent a new
    window from opening.
    Harlan Messinger, Dec 19, 2008
    #12
  13. DLU

    DLU Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 19 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >


    > Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
    > me when I say the majority of most people don't. Take me for instance.
    > I went to your site to check the image you mentioned. It was pleasing
    > to see that the image filesize was only around 11k. I clicked on the
    > link to view the full-size image, -a nice pic, indeed. But when I
    > attempted to go back, there was no back. Petulantly, I closed the
    > errant window, but in my aggrieved state I accidentally double-clicked
    > the mouse and also closed the first/main window as well. Now truly
    > perturbed, I made a voodoo doll of you in a leotard and spent several
    > hours sticking pins in the loci of what are traditionally the most
    > delicate regions available to an actual living host. See?
    >

    Hmm, I may have to reconsider then. I thought I felt pins and needles
    this morning but I attributed it to the niacin I took earlier.
    And I don't wear leotards, I wear spandex bicycle clothing.

    --
    ***************************************
    * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
    * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
    * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
    ***************************************
    DLU, Dec 19, 2008
    #13
  14. On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:13:16 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >On 19 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a
    >>>>> strict 4.01 doctype anyway.
    >>>> What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You don't.
    >>>
    >>> Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab,
    >>> or new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link
    >>> opens in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can
    >>> ways hit the back button to return.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=why opening links in new window
    >>> bad+web+design&btnG=Google+Search
    >>>
    >>> why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search
    >>>

    >> A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do
    >> not have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open
    >> and a second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to
    >> most of them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people
    >> looking for information, or meeting schedules and such. Very few of
    >> them even know what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown
    >> someone a USENET group when they wanted some kind of information and
    >> they were astounded that such a medium even exists.
    >>
    >> Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in
    >> a second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for
    >> that.

    >
    >Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
    >me when I say the majority of most people don't.


    The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
    with a right-clik on the link to propose:
    Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
    Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used
    Raymond Schmit, Dec 20, 2008
    #14
  15. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 19 Dec 2008, DLU <> wrote:

    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >> Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However,
    >> believe me when I say the majority of most people don't. Take me
    >> for instance. I went to your site to check the image you mentioned.
    >> It was pleasing to see that the image filesize was only around 11k.
    >> I clicked on the link to view the full-size image, -a nice pic,
    >> indeed. But when I attempted to go back, there was no back.
    >> Petulantly, I closed the errant window, but in my aggrieved state I
    >> accidentally double-clicked the mouse and also closed the first/main
    >> window as well. Now truly perturbed, I made a voodoo doll of you in
    >> a leotard and spent several hours sticking pins in the loci of what
    >> are traditionally the most delicate regions available to an actual
    >> living host. See?
    >>

    > Hmm, I may have to reconsider then. I thought I felt pins and
    > needles this morning but I attributed it to the niacin I took
    > earlier. And I don't wear leotards, I wear spandex bicycle clothing.


    <grin />

    Aw, I didn't really make a voodoo doll of you, but I do believe that
    superfluous windows aren't a good idea. Anyway, happy holidays.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 21, 2008
    #15
  16. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 19 Dec 2008, (Raymond Schmit) wrote:

    >>> Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open
    >>> in a second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been
    >>> made for that.

    >>
    >>Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However,
    >>believe me when I say the majority of most people don't.

    >
    > The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
    > with a right-clik on the link to propose:
    > Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
    > Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used


    Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether? I believe
    most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
    option available in the right-click context menu already. -Or at least
    have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 21, 2008
    #16
  17. DLU

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Dec 21, 8:24 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 19 Dec 2008, (Raymond Schmit) wrote:
    >
    > >>> Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open
    > >>> in a second window.  I find it odd, that not provision has been
    > >>> made for that.

    >
    > >>Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it.  However,
    > >>believe me when I say the majority of most people don't.  

    >
    > > The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
    > > with a right-clik on the link to propose:
    > > Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
    > > Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used

    >
    > Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether?  I believe
    > most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
    > option available in the right-click context menu already.  -Or at least
    > have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.
    >

    They all do. All modern browsers have pop-up blockers, which can be
    set to block all pop-ups. Which I do in IE7 and Firefox3 as well as
    Opera (when I actually use Opera that is).
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Dec 21, 2008
    #17
  18. On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:24:58 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >On 19 Dec 2008, (Raymond Schmit) wrote:
    >
    >>>> Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open
    >>>> in a second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been
    >>>> made for that.
    >>>
    >>>Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However,
    >>>believe me when I say the majority of most people don't.

    >>
    >> The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
    >> with a right-clik on the link to propose:
    >> Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
    >> Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used

    >
    >Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether? I believe
    >most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
    >option available in the right-click context menu already. -Or at least
    >have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.


    Yes .... but why not having also the "open in the same window"
    option. ?
    Raymond Schmit, Dec 21, 2008
    #18
  19. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 21 Dec 2008, Chaddy2222 <>
    wrote:

    > On Dec 21, 8:24 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether?  I
    >> believ

    > e
    >> most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new
    >> window" option available in the right-click context menu already.
    >>  -Or at least have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring
    >> targets.
    >>

    > They all do. All modern browsers have pop-up blockers, which can be
    > set to block all pop-ups. Which I do in IE7 and Firefox3 as well as
    > Opera (when I actually use Opera that is).


    But can these pop-up blockers be set to ignore "pop-ups" created by the
    "target=_blank" attribute? I know they work on j/s pop-ups and at
    least some browsers can be persuaded to open new windows in tabs, but
    how 'bout the first thing?

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 22, 2008
    #19
  20. DLU

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 21 Dec 2008, (Raymond Schmit) wrote:

    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:24:58 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
    > <> wrote:
    >>Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether? I
    >>believe most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a
    >>new window" option available in the right-click context menu already.
    >> -Or at least have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring
    >>targets.

    >
    > Yes .... but why not having also the "open in the same window"
    > option. ?


    Shouldn't be needed; that is and should be the default, then if any
    page target setting is ignored...

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Dec 22, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles A. Lackman

    Thumbnail View

    Charles A. Lackman, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    Charles A. Lackman
    Apr 1, 2004
  2. hb
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    9,096
  3. David Lozzi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    481
    john smith
    Feb 1, 2006
  4. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: filename.gif or filename.gif.jpg?

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 30, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    727
    Jonathan N. Little
    May 30, 2008
  5. Bergamot
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
    Bergamot
    May 30, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page