We tried to test the performance of two images on site’e homepage. We tested one image then the other one. Now the issue is the image which is having large size, better quality as well as large dimensions is giving us better speed results as compared to the image having small size and less quality even though it should have been opposite to it but help me figure out why is that. The image is the first image on site’s homepage.
Speed results: https://pagespeed.web.dev/report?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhijrahpress.com%2F
Image that gives better results is named with large(having large size, dimensions and high quality) and other as small.
Large image:https://ibb.co/S6cK7sj
Small image:https://ibb.co/cFFhvdk
Large image currently used on homepage.
The suggestion are to convert the png image to webp.
It should be sized to fit your page. The image size on your webpage is 600 x 900.
I converted for you. This is much improved.
arabicgrammar.webp 600 x 900px
Related
Perhaps my mind isn't mathematically competent enough to do this, but here it goes:
I am using Photoshop. I have 2 images taken from different heights. Both images have the same object in it (so the size of this object remains the same) but I am trying to resize both images so that this object is the same pixel size. That way I can properly measure the difference between other objects in the images with the proper ratio.
My end goal is to measure the differences of scars healing (before and after) using a same-size object in both images as a baseline.
To measure the difference in the photo, I have been counting pixels using the histogram feature:
Even though i changed the pixel width and height to roughly the same size, the 2 images have a drastically different number of pixels. So comparing the red or white from the before to the after won't make sense until I can get these to match.
Can anyone point me in the right direction here? How can I compare apples to apples here?
So went a different route here in case anyone was trying wondering what I did.
Rather than change the size of the images, just calculated the increase manually separately.
I'm currently in the process of making an interactive map. From previous knowledge I learned that it was all about pixel count so that the map could cover a large area. This map needs to cover an area twice the size of the Earth.
My original map is at 35000 x 20000 pixels # 300 dpi. Which gives me great zoomability for the interactive map.
However, I was just contacted by an artist that offered to make the map. And they suggested a size of 9000 x 6000 pixels but at 1200 dpi. Saying that this can be resized up to my original needs without the loss of quality.
My issue here is that I don't understand how that could work. And so, I don't want to start the job and paying for it. Until I'm sure that the end result will be as by my needs.
PS: I do not know if this is the right stackoverflow to be asking this question. And looking at the "Similar Questions" in the right pane, suggest it isn't. If that is true, perhaps somebody can point me in the right direction.
This obviously won't work: DPI matters only for printing. So 9000x6000 in whatever DPI will have to be scaled up to 35000x20000 with loss of quality. Maybe the artist meant something else..?
And the proper stack exchange for this question would be a https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com
I have tried the following methods,
normal image upload.
encoding and decoding.
these two methods are taking long time to upload the image.
Any suggestion?
There are some simple ways:
Reduce the size of the image. From 1000x1000 to 500x500
Reduce the bpp of the image. For example instead of RGBA representation (32 bits per pixel) use RGB_565 (16bits per pixel) or even gray level image (8bits)
Reduce the quality of the image. Save it as .jpg. This will make the image much smaller. You can play with the quality parameter of jpeg. 100% means very high quality and large files, 1% means extremely tiny images (~40 times smaller) but all the details will be lost.
Save the image in Jpeg200 format. It reduces the size even further. Not every browser supports this format, so you might need to convert it to regular jpeg.
Use pyramids of images. For example. You have 1000x1000 image. Reduce its size by 2 to get 500x500, reduce again and again. Now you got 4 images 1000x1000, 500x500, 250x250, 125x125. You upload the 4 of them. Starting from the smallest to the largest. The smallest image will be uploaded very quick and you will be able to display it (though it is in lower resolution). Next when a better image arrives you update the display and resolution enhances. The effect would be that the basic image is loaded extremely fast and over time the resolution is enhanced. The transfer time of the 4 images will take only 30% more time than the original but the first one will arrive 64 times faster than the original
These are the basic solutions. If they are not what you needed please refine the question
I'm using a 40 x 40 sized image as a search result suggestion image in Windows 8 search. Only advice about the image format I can find is to have correct size for it (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/Hh700542.aspx: "Windows will scale or crop smaller or larger images").
However, the correctly sized image blurs annoyingly. The same thing happens whether I use jpg or png. Original image looks fine, but the result suggestion in the search charm is very ugly, being still of same size! Is Windows converting the image somehow, and how could I get the image to stay crisp?
I haven't noticed blurring with photo-like images, but this image contains clear lines and areas which are vulnerable to any scaling etc.
Update Sep 24:
Here is the test image I used when trying to figure out the problem. I also created different scale versions, but in my case the 100% version was used (that's why the "100" marking) - as I supposed because the resulting image really is 40x40. As you can see, the resulting image (right) is of same size as original (left), but blurry.
it does not happen that often but it seems the right solution in this case was simply to wait ;) I haven't done anything new regarding result suggestion images in my solution and today I realized that the images became crisp. Probably fixed by any of the windows updates.
[Took a stab at answering what seems the related question mentioned in the comments, so I'm posting here as well.]
It sounds like this could be related to automatic scaling of the images. Windows will automatically scale up/down based on pixel density, and you can help things scale well by either using vector-based images or, for bitmap images, supplying scale-specific versions.
For example, to scale an image referenced in markup as "AppLogo.jpg", you'd include these images:
AppLogo.scale-100.jpg
AppLogo.scale-140.jpg
AppLogo.scale-180.jpg
You can also use folders, e.g. "\scale-140\AppLogo.jpg".
For search result images, the 100% image is the 40x40 pixel version, 140 is 56x56, and 180 is 72x72. Just reference the image as "AppLogo.jpg" and the appropriate version will be used automatically. (You can also detect scale with DisplayProperties.ResolutionScale and manually choose an image.)
Here's a couple of articles with more examples/details:
"Guidelines for scaling to pixel density"
"Quickstart: Using file or image resources"
There's also some scaling discussion in the forums (general, not specific to search) here and here.
The conditions:
It's a movie website with approximately 1000 images of 15kb
Approximately 70% of all images will be loaded on a page visit
Images will have a long expiry date.
I think I will chose CSS-sprites because most images will be loaded by the visitors any way. But the CSS-sprite of all images are 9MB and 15000x2000px. Even if I devide it into 3 sprites it's 3MB :S
Maybe such big sprites will cause some problems?
Will images be cached by the browser even if they are 3-9MB?
Will the big pixel dimensions be any problem for the browser?
Lazy load or CSS-sprite, what should I chose?
Please advice me!
Yes this will cause problems:
Due to the sprite size and dimensions, it will significantly consum cpu power
if you use it often on one page, it could even decrease scrolling and at least DOM manipulation actions
9MB is too big, do you have a link to that sprite ?
The browser will cache it, if the headers are set correct, that is not the problem
And you dont want to load a 9MB Sprite that is mandatory for a site !!! Mobile ?!?!!
Gekkstah