Jump to content
Wolseley Forum 2.0
  • Announcements

    • Nishka

      Wolseley Forum 2.0   16/03/18

      Welcome to the 'new and improved' Wolseley Forum 2.0 While we can't guarantee we will get your whites whiter, we can guarantee a wonderful experience in the world of Wolseleys.   The Wolseley Forum Team
Nishka

Picture quality test

Recommended Posts

Nishka

Full size JPG from camera, 300 ppi, 100%, baseline. (3.41Mb)

 

Full.jpg

 

1024 x 768 JPG, 300 ppi, 100%, baseline. (719kb)

 

1024_300ppi_100_.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, 100%, baseline. (719kb)

 

1024_150ppi_100_.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, 100%, baseline optimised. (696kb)

 

1024_150ppi_100__base_opt.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150ppi, 100%, progressive. (693kb)

 

1024_150ppi_100__prog.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 100% (712kb)

 

1024_150_prog_web_100.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 80% (356kb)

 

1024_150_prog_web_80.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 60% (216kb)

 

1024_150_prog_web_60.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 30% (112kb)

 

1024_150_prog_web_30.jpg

 

1024 x 768, 150 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 10% (68.6kb)

 

1024_150_prog_web_10.jpg

 

Full size, 300 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 100% (3.86Mb)

 

Full_web_100.jpg

 

Full size, 300 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 80% (1.98Mb)

 

Full_web_80.jpg

 

Full size, 300 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 60% (1.16Mb)

 

Full_web_60.jpg

 

Full size, 300 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 30% (571kb)

 

Full_web_30.jpg

 

Full size, 300 ppi, progressive, Save for Web, 10% (375kb)

 

Full_web_10.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolseley

but they are the same car lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nishka

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/)">

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Oldham

For the benefit of the computer thickkies among us, what was all that about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs Nishka

Nishka was just using the post for testing Fred.

 

Mrs Nishka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Oldham

No wiser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Sanderson

It's a test to see how small a file size you can use for a digital image before it's lack of quality becomes apparent. The smaller the file size, the quicker it downloads to computers at home to be visible to impatient Wolseley Forum users.

 

It's different for printing on paper and for websites. If your 6in x 4in happy snap of your Wolseley is going to be printed in a magazine, the digital image file needs to have a density of no less than 300dpi (dots per inch) when seen at 6x4 size. Saved as a JPEG, a method of compression, that'll be somewhere near 3 megabytes. These are high-resolution images.

 

Happily, our PC screens are only about 72dpi (sometimes 90dpi), so images meant to be seen only on-screen via a website need only be 72dpi themselves. These are refered to as low-resolution images. There's no point in making them finer detailed than that (eg: 300dpi) since you won't see the difference. I won't go into why the human eye allows this to happen (er, because I can't; I didn't understand the explanation). A 6x4 72dpi image is only about a tenth the file size of a 300dpi image that has the same 6x4 boundaries, and so downloads through the Internet much, much quicker. If you have a number of images on the same web page, that's going to be a big saving in download quantity and therefore download speed.

 

Note that an Internet-quality 72dpi low resolution image printed on paper will look blocky and pixelated since the fine quality required by 300dpi ink-on-paper printing simply isn't there. Bumping up the 72dpi image to 300dpi in photo editing software is easily done but is not the answer; technically it will pass muster, and the pixelation will have disappeared, but the image looks unfocused and mushy since the fine detail has not been replaced (the rough 72dpi quality has simply been smoothed-out via smaller more closely-packed image dots). For this reason photographers shoot in high-resolution in the first place, because you can always go down to website quality but can't come up from there to print quality.

 

Ever faster Broadband means big file sizes are not such an issue now, and of course desktop computers and iPads, etc are now being built with higher resolution screens for more sparkling image quality. But until everyone has such future technology there is no point in having images bigger than they need be. And, obviously, 'small' digital images take up less space on your hard disc.

 

Paul Sanderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Oldham

Thanks Paul. Very informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×