Compressing/ optimising image sizes

Hi all,
I am currently working on a horizontal image slideshow. I have around 35 large and high quality images that are simply aligned next to each other and the slideshow is controlled by horizontal scolling.
My problem is that the images take very long to load and the slideshow is constantly lagging. I have even added a preloader but it isnt really helping.
Is there any way to compress my pictures?
Thank you,
Nicolas

What is your average image filesize?
Typically
- don't use images straight out of a camera, especially DSLR's - they tend to be mb heavy;
- use .jpg
- resize as needed, example resize or crop images to the viewable area you are showcasing;
You can resize, crop or output for web using a variety of free or commercial applications.
What graphics application do you have at hand?
Darrell

Similar Messages

  • How to compress image size?

    Hi,
    Is there any way to compress image size in iphone? Actually my application is uploding images to server from phone. It takes long time to upload the original image. So if I can compress or convert to thumbnail, it'll help me out.
    thanks

    I got the answer use UIImageJPEGRepresentation(image, compressionQuality) to compress the image.

  • Optimize JPG image size reduction by reduced compression quality vs. reduced pixels?

    I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592).   Although I will be saving these as lossless TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size.  Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size.  My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing  JPG compression quality.  Thank you

    Thank you Doug.  The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind.  My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices).  As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements. 
    In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome.  So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best".  But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published.  In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described.  I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
    Thanks again.

  • Email-to facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL, I reduce the file size.  Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression?

    To facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL and avoid overwhelming the recipient's screen, I reduce the file size.  Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression?  I have been making a duplicate image of 35 MB and reducing the image size to 8"x12" at 72 resolution giving a file size of 1.4 MB.  Then I SAVE AS a jpg of medium compression giving a  file size of about 111 KB.  Overkill?

    Go to File>save for web.
    I usually make the long side 800 px
    At the bottom of the dialog, check "constrain proportions."
    At the top, select JPEG in the dropdown for the file format.
    All the work is done for you! 72px/in is ok for web work. 240-300px/in is the recommended range for printing.

  • IE incompatible ? Image size.

    Hi,
    I know very little about HTML, CSS and the like but as a photographer I upload gallery webs all the time for clients etc. I generate these in PS CS2 or iView MediaPro and then upload to my server (shared web hosting).
    With a current project requiring a 'site' type environment I decided to try iWeb. Before visiting this site please note that due to image sizes with iWeb it's a bit on the heavy side and if you're using IE on a PC BEWARE of crashes! Safari may even crash as has done with me.
    http://www.kura-images.com/camping
    Remarks and problems :
    1. As you can see my site does not resemble any iWeb template - using the 'modern' template I basically threw everything away and designed from scratch. It's a great WYSIWYG appli in that sense - no code - just drag and drop, resize, add some effects etc. I published regulary to a folder as a way of double checking but was impressed with the 100% WYSIWYG capability of iWeb
    2. Image size is a MAJOR problem. My concerns are specifically with the gallery pages generated from the photo page temps. Thumbnails at 16ko is too big and the motor that generates the large image files uses a single parameter (800pixels largest dimension) that cannot be changed in any pref settings etc. It also uses a compression factor which is a tad too high. Using Image Ready or the PS gallery web function (driven by Image Ready) I can get as good visual quality for my web-optimised JPEGS for 65% of the file size.
    Note : I tried this file swap as a test
    I changed one image in the folder for the "activités" page (activities_008) - I made a smaller thumbnail in ImageReady and created a 600pixel version of the large file; I replaced the images in the folder with these and checked the site. The thumb appears no problem in a smaller size (btw 6ko vs 16ko - that's a big diff when you apply it to 250 images !). SlideshowJS however has instructions to open the image at main size as determined by the slideshow index file creation generated by iWeb. And that's written as 800pixels. So on opening the 600 pixel image I'd replaced, slideshowJS opened it to 800pixels (not pretty). The only way to rectify that was to go into the source code in the relevant 'activités' js file, find the codeline for the image 008 and change the values manually. And I'd have to do that with 250 line of code ! That rather defeats the prupose of having a nice easy application to produce your galleries.
    3. Upload to my server via Transmit was trouble-free. No problems publishing to a non .mac server.
    4. Problem with the page titles. The names you give to pages determines the URL. Any spaces means you get the %20 thing and if, like me, you're writing in French the accents mean that iWeb has to get around the problem in a different, and not very practical, way. iWeb creates a random character line as a name, and uses that as the URL for pages where accents appear in the title. When the assets and index page are published those long character names appear on the index file and folder.
    I also think that may lead to compatability issues with certain servers.
    5. But here's the BIG PROBLEM !
    I had 4 people with PC's and IE (God bless 'em) check out the site. 2 reported repeated crashes of IE (unexpectedly quit exe. error). No problems with the homepage - just when clicking on some of the photo pages. What is really strange is that neither had problems when accessing the 'La Soirée' page, but both had problems with all the others. Apparently the crash came after IE tried to load the page, succeeded in loading a few thumbnails and then stopped and crashed 5-10secs later.
    6. EVEN WORSE !
    I have gone back to my site several times, emptying Safari cache each time, and have succeded in stalling definitively Safari's attempts to load certain pages. Just stops with partial page upload. I then have to quit Safari and re-open to be able to access any web page (even other sites). Sometimes it's OK, sometimes not.
    This site goes officially live on wednesday morning but for now it's a no-goer. Just too erratic and not IE compatible.
    PLEASE, any suggestions ?
    Many thanks in advance
    Peter
    G5 2Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.5)  

    4. Problem with the page titles. The names you give
    to pages determines the URL. Any spaces means you get
    the %20 thing and if, like me, you're writing in
    French the accents mean that iWeb has to get around
    the problem in a different, and not very practical,
    way. iWeb creates a random character line as a name,
    and uses that as the URL for pages where accents
    appear in the title. When the assets and index page
    are published those long character names appear on
    the index file and folder.
    I also think that may lead to compatability issues
    with certain servers.
    Yes, it is best to avoid spaces and accents and special characters if you can. If you must have them in your navigation links, then don't use the iWeb nav bar. Instead give your pages very short simple names with the Inspector, uncheck the box for "include in nav bar," and just create ordinary hyperlinks for page navigation. I don't know if this will help with IE compatibility, but it can't hurt.

  • Reducing background image size

    Hi all,
    I'm working with Captivate 4 and have made a screencast of a particular process for training purposes.
    The project has 80 slides - but each background image is 1800+kb. Overall the project comes out at 3 MB even with the highest possible compression in the publishing settings.
    The project is to be hosted on the Web so I really don't need this kind of detail in the background images and I can't find anyway to reduce the image size apart from exporting each of the 80 backgrounds into Photoshop, reducing them in size and importing them back into Catptivate. For 80 slides this would take too long.
    So, two questions:
    How can the background image size be reduced within Captivate?
    How can I change the settings so when capturing screenshots the image sizes are smaller in the first place?
    Thanks in advance for any tips,
    Neil
    Is there anyway the

    Thanks Lilybiri
    I've bene recording at full screen (1024x768 or close enough) in order to get the largest recording space possible - and then resizing the project to 800x600 for the web production. The problem is that there is no optimise for web setting (or none that I can see). I just did another test and each background image is 3000kb - way over the top for something that will be viewed on the web.
    Does this help you get a fuller picture? Any advice?
    Thanks for sparing your time to answer here btw - much appreciated
    Neil

  • Compress an image before upload

    Hi,
    Is there a way to compress an image using Flex? the scenario I have is: the user takes a picture from a mobile device camera, I then upload it to the cloud. I'd like to be able to shrink the image in size before I upload it as it takes ages.
    Many thanks

    I believe there are PNG and JPEG encoders

  • Photo gallery image size

    Hi. Is it possible to adjust the photo gallery module's code in a way that makes the image that gets displayed on selecting the thumbnail image display no larger than the browser? I have a client that's uploaded image that are pretty large and would prefer not to have to save them as smaller images if possible.
    Thanks
    Grant

    Are you by any chance saving as a JPEG or TIFF file?
    The image size that Photoshop displays is the uncompressed file size - if you save in a format such as JPEG the image is compressed, which will result in a smaller file size.
    Below is a comparison of the same image in Photoshop versus the compressed file saved to my computer:
    Here's a more technical explanation of what's going on: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15184/why-does-photoshop-show-my-jpeg-files-unusu ally-large
    EDIT: If you want more accurate control over the image file size when saving, try going to File > Save for Web... You'll be able to choose your file format, and then see the resulting file size in the bottom left-hand corner of the window:
    I hope this helps!
    Cheers,
    Kendall

  • Image size and resolution....just when I thought I understood!

    I couldn't find this question anywhere else, but I can't be the only one who's come across this:
    I have an image in a folder...finder/explorer tells me that it's 638px X 479px, and 234KB.
    I open it in Photoshop and go to Image Size. PS says it is indeed 638x479pixels, but that it's 5.4" x 4.06" at 300pp and the "pixel dimensions" add up to 895KB?
    (Then, when I place it in InDesign, at 100%, it measures around 2.1" x 1.6"? What's going on? If I input those dimensions into the Image Size dialogue box in PS, without resampling, it would have to be 750.25ppi. Obviously it's not.)
    How big is this file really? Which program do I trust...windows explorer or photoshop?

    The ppi resolution is simply a number stored with the file to indicate how large to display the image. The height and width in pixels are part of the image data itself. So the pixel dimensions are always the number to trust.
    You can open an image in Photoshop and in Image Size change the resolution (ppi) and if you don't check Resample Image the actual image data don't change at all, only the number stating the pixels per inch.
    The reason the Pixel Dimensions size in KB is different in Photoshop vs. Explorer is that the file is likely a Jpeg, which is compressed. When Photoshop calculates pixel dimensions, it does this based on an uncompressed file (each pixel=3 bytes for an 8-bit RGB image.) When Jpeg compression is used, a pixel can be much less than 3 bytes, and the actual number varies depending on the image quality and how detailed the image is.
    To see this, save your image as an uncompressed Tiff format and the size will very closely match the pixel dimensions. But if saved as a Jpeg, it will be smaller but still the same height and width and the same ppi.
    If you are using CS3, it automatically uses a form of lossless compression if saving in PSD format with "Maximize Compatibility" disabled. So in this case the file size will also be smaller than the pixel dimensions number, but if saved in Tiff, it will match that number instead.

  • Image size vs zip for reducing

    I am not looking forward to open up files/mouse up to image size/type up the required 800x600 a million times, and I just discovered control/compress . My camera has, in the 2 sizes of the smallest set of  JPEG, the larger @ 2784x1856 is a 728 KB which gets zipped to 712 KB. Being mathematically challenged,  I can only tell that a little size is lost with respect to the 800x600 that I am allowed to by the recipient, from the fact that I can manually compress to 800x600 and get a better 1.2 MB.
    In the next larger JPEG, the same 2784 X 1856  is a 2.6 MB which is zipped to 2.5, and I need to check the image size in pixel, VERY IMPORTANT for the recipient. It probably will be  about double than the smaller, but would the pixels exceed too much the 800 x 600, should I give up compress altogether, and do it manually? And by the way, how do I open a zip file? And above all, can it be used for pict?

    Thank you PZ.
    I particularly liked the part of your answer where you said viable wait time will  "depend on your target audience and their connection speed."
    I have a custom cabinet shop.
    A big part of my customer base finds me from a google search and fortunately for me,  when they are about to embark on a kitchen remodel they are very motivated to learn everything they can.
    I understand now that all referenced images are downloaded,
    What about linked pages?
    If I parse the images out to several pages would this enhance overall download speed?
    That last question is probably premature.
    I should first research the link you provided.
    Thanks again.
    Jarvis

  • Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

    I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
    Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
    I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
    I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
    I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
    Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
    I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
    Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution)  that can not be changed.  Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
    Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file).  If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off).  In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
    So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up.  There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space.  The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution.  All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
    Hope this helps.

  • Image size doubled ?

    Can someone explain to me why my image size is doubled when it is exported from LR3 to PS5?
    Edit in PS5 - Tiff -16bit -240 res -Compression - none

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    Kenaston wrote:
    raw file in LR3 2592x3872
    Arrives in CS5..... Image size w-2592 h3872
    As I mentioned, there are MANY different measurements.
    Focus on the pixel count.  That hasn't changed.
    Photoshop's little status window, for example, shows you the MB size that's often used to describe images in pro photographic circles (as in "our service accepts only 20 MB images and larger").
    Additionally, if you're comparing raw file size on the disk, keep in mind most raw files are compressed.
    Just keep working as you have been, and like I said, keep an eye on the pixel counts (H x V).
    -Noel

  • Image size to fill out the IE window

    Hello,
    I have a view with a menu on the left and a view container on the right side.
    In the view container a linked another view.
    That only constist of an image. I want this image to fill out the whole space available in the IE.
    if somwbody has a low monitor resultion, it should be rezised to fill out everything and if somebody has a high resultion its the same. I dont want any "scroll bars" in the IE because the picture is to big nor I want empty space because the picture is displayed smaller than the window of the IE.
    I have tried everything out. I put the image in a transparent container with "stretch", i set high and width for the transparent container and the picture to 100% but nothing really works.
    As soon as I set high of the image to 100% it zero pixel. But if I set an value with px, em or ex I define the size and rezising is not done. And I cant see what the option "adjust image size" really does. I cant see any difference by (un)-checking it.
    Is there any way to tell an object to be exactly that size the IE has? Is webdynpro able to recognize the monitor resolution and render an object to exactly that size?
    Thanks for your help!

    Thanks for the quick answer!
    It does not work.
    I can only see a very thin horizontal like. The image gets "compressed" to about 3 pixel and the line is as long as the image is wide (so no vertical sizing as well).
    I tried it with WinXP SP3 and IE8.
    I tried it with WinXP SP3 and IE6.
    I tried it with my own PC via VPN to make sure its no nasty setting to our company desktop and I have only Windows, Office, SAP GUI on it. Nothing else.
    Always the same result. As soon as I set the height of the image to 100% I get only a thin horizontal line.
    You were able to accomplish. So I tried FireFox portable - and it works!
    My lesson learned is that a picture can only be re-sized to a smaller size but not expanded. Thats no problem, I could use a 1600x1200 pixel graphic and then its made smaller.
    But we have to use IE because thats the companies standard and SAPs as well.
    We have the application running on a NetWeaver 2004s BI 7.0 machine. No EHP1. System got latest patches 3-4 month ago.
    I cant believe that the SAP machine is the problem, because FireFox renders the graphik the same as your screenshots show.
    Do you have any idea what the problem could be? Or could it be some kind of customizing/parameter problem within SAP? I have the problem since over 1 year and always thought its just a bug getting solved somewhen by a patch...

  • Lightroom 1.4.1:  Reducing File/Image Size for Web/E-Mail

    This should be a simple thing.
    I need to reduce my file size to upload it into various things on the web and e-mail and what not.  Sometimes it asks for a specific size.
    Right now, I'm using the Export function to do this, which means I have to reset the Image Settings each time in order to get to the size required.
    Isn't there and easier way to do this, like just type in the image size you want and have the program reset the image proportionately?
    Is there a ratio chart for this, like 1000 x 1400 = # of bytes?
    This is a function used all the time--I can't believe it's this cumbersome.

    Banktank wrote:
    (a)     How do I know I am selecting the correct pixel size for e-mail?  Just keep hunting and pecking until I find the right mix or is there a number combination that works consistently?  And if the latter is correct, what is that number combination.
    I just can't believe that reducing the MP size to get it in shape for an e-mail "thumbprint" photo is this tough.  Even with the 'preset', I'd have to set up a preset for every picture because they vary by MP and the scaling seems to change.
    There is no "standard" size for sending images via email. Just make it small. There is a save for email preset in recent releases of Lr. You can download the demo and see what that entails.
    You don't have to create a preset for each picture. I don't know what you would say that. Yes, the amount it compress varies with the information in the image, but this has always been the case with JPEGs. You don't have to make an image that is exactly some size. You just have to make it small enough for most MTAs and MUAs to handle. Since there is no real standard for this, just make it small enough for you.
    Something like 800px on the longest side, 70-80% quality should do it to find the JPEG compression sweet-spot.

  • Do I need to reduce the images size in pixels before upload them to M.Me?

    Do I need to reduce the images size in pixels (actual size jpeg 5616 × 3744 pixels/766kb) before upload them from iPhoto to a Mobile Me Gallery?
    Otherwise they will be heavy or the upload process take care of that?
    It would be nice that iPhoto took care and optimize the images to display online without any more work, because I´ve 1200 images to upload and they´re jpegs 5616 × 3744 pixels. It´s just to viewing purposes. Not o download or print.
    Thanks.

    In fact no matter if I use a High or Medium compression size JPEG, the size after upload is the same.
    Starts with 1,5 MB/5600px (high) or 780kb/5600px (medium) JPEG and ends after upload in 115kb for a 1024px image.
    This means that iPhoto auto compress in order to publish to Mobile Me, even if we start with a bigger file.
    I hope this info is useful to others.
    Thanks.

Maybe you are looking for