Any rcomendation for a FAST loading phot web page software? What do you use?

S
Posted By
spectrepjcook
Mar 19, 2005
Views
1137
Replies
19
Status
Closed
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

R
RSD99
Mar 19, 2005
SMALL pictures.

wrote in message
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.
S
spectrepjcook
Mar 19, 2005
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:17:12 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

SMALL pictures.

wrote in message
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.
EG
Eric Gill
Mar 19, 2005
wrote in news:gs2p31hbvo6cadg4g3ig2e8ucoivu5s3k5@
4ax.com:

I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

No, it *really is* the total size of the transmitted files that matters, and the images are the bulk of that.

Small pictures.
MM
Mister Max
Mar 20, 2005

[posted and mailed]

Eric Gill posted:

wrote in
news:gs2p31hbvo6cadg4g3ig2e8ucoivu5s3k5@ 4ax.com:

I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

No, it *really is* the total size of the transmitted files that matters, and the images are the bulk of that.

Small pictures.
To spell it out, make them 500 pixels wide AND save as JPEG at a low Quality number. Some say saving for web gives a smaller file, but I haven’t seen that.

On my web site, the photos are no larger than 500 px high or 780 wide, and I keep the size of each file under 100 KB. You may prefer different numbers. – Max


MisterMax

http://buten.net/max/
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Myanmar (new), Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand (new), Tour de France.

http://pbase.com/mistermax – Shadows and Reflections
P
PiT
Mar 20, 2005
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT
L
Larry
Mar 21, 2005
re: photoshop "Save for Web" – byte for byte, it produces higher quality images than Save As .jpg
-alu

"Mister Max" wrote in message
[posted and mailed]

To spell it out, make them 500 pixels wide AND save as JPEG at a low Quality number. Some say saving for web gives a smaller file, but I haven’t seen that.
L
Larry
Mar 21, 2005
Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results than Photoshop’s Save For Web?
Please elaborate – would love to know more…
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT

P
PiT
Mar 21, 2005
hi alu,

specs question wasn’t the highest or best compression – the question was about a fast way to show a huge number of pics. therefore i’m still recommending these two proggies.

but nevertheless i’ve tested ps’ save for web -> better compression. thanks for the info …

PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results
than Photoshop’s Save For Web?
Please elaborate – would love to know more…
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT

L
Larry
Mar 21, 2005
PiT
probably beating a dead horse here but i’m quite confused – showing large numbers of pics quickly would require smaller file sizes right? so given you would like a certain image quality, better compression is the answer, no?
or are you saying irfanview / xnview can create smaller file sizes than ps by saving to a lower quality than ps is capable of?
or are you saying you can batch process them faster using these two apps?? please explain.
thanks
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
hi alu,

specs question wasn’t the highest or best compression – the question was about a fast way to show a huge number of pics. therefore i’m still recommending these two proggies.

but nevertheless i’ve tested ps’ save for web -> better compression.
thanks
for the info …

PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results
than Photoshop’s Save For Web?
Please elaborate – would love to know more…
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT

P
PiT
Mar 22, 2005
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to view(!) a large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse … ;o)


PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
PiT
probably beating a dead horse here but i’m quite confused – showing large numbers of pics quickly would require smaller file sizes right? so given you would like a certain image quality, better compression is the answer, no?
or are you saying irfanview / xnview can create smaller file sizes than ps by saving to a lower quality than ps is capable of?
or are you saying you can batch process them faster using these two apps?? please explain.
thanks
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
hi alu,

specs question wasn’t the highest or best compression – the question was about a fast way to show a huge number of pics. therefore i’m still recommending these two proggies.

but nevertheless i’ve tested ps’ save for web -> better compression.
thanks
for the info …

PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results
than Photoshop’s Save For Web?
Please elaborate – would love to know more…
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT

L
Larry
Mar 23, 2005
you’re sittin’ on the right horse, and it’s still breathin’. i understand spectre’s question; it’s your answer that’s never been explained.
one last try PiT, yer killin me here! how about a fill-in-the-blank?

"Irfanview and/or Xnview do __________________________ better than photoshop which is why i (PiT) recommend them to produce jpg images for faster loading pages."

-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to view(!)
a
large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse … ;o)


PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
PiT
probably beating a dead horse here but i’m quite confused – showing
large
numbers of pics quickly would require smaller file sizes right? so given you would like a certain image quality, better compression is
the
answer, no?
or are you saying irfanview / xnview can create smaller file sizes than
ps
by saving to a lower quality than ps is capable of?
or are you saying you can batch process them faster using these two
apps??
please explain.
thanks
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
hi alu,

specs question wasn’t the highest or best compression – the question
was
about a fast way to show a huge number of pics. therefore i’m still recommending these two proggies.

but nevertheless i’ve tested ps’ save for web -> better compression.
thanks
for the info …

PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Are you saying that one or both of these produce better compression results
than Photoshop’s Save For Web?
Please elaborate – would love to know more…
-alu

"PiT" wrote in message
I always resize to 500 wide. What is the best display software for speed?

i recommend irfanview (www.irfanview.com) or xnview (www.xnview.com) —
PiT
P
paul
Mar 23, 2005
wrote:
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

PiT wrote:
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to view(!) a large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse … ;o)

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long as you don’t start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It’s a breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.
L
Larry
Mar 23, 2005
Paul, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
If we don’t here back from PiT, I’ll download the *&^%! apps, run the tests myself., and get back to ya.
-alu

"paul" wrote in message
wrote:
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

PiT wrote:
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to
view(!) a
large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse
….
;o)

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long as you don’t start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It’s a breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.
Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.
P
PiT
Mar 23, 2005
nice idea to test by yourself, alu

imho irfanview is my favourite app for viewing pics in a fast and comfortable way. it starts very fast (less than one second – ps7 needs more than 10 seconds to start on my amd2400+/1gig ram – pc) and it’s easy to handle with. via shortcut you can start a self defined image manipulation prog like ps7 for further work with actual viewed image. it has a large number of other gimmicks, explore them please by yourself …


PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Paul, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
If we don’t here back from PiT, I’ll download the *&^%! apps, run the tests
myself., and get back to ya.
-alu

"paul" wrote in message
wrote:
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

PiT wrote:
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to
view(!) a
large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse

;o)

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long as you don’t start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It’s a breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

P
PiT
Mar 23, 2005
…. and sorry for my bad english (it isn’t my native language)

|-(

PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Paul, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
If we don’t here back from PiT, I’ll download the *&^%! apps, run the tests
myself., and get back to ya.
-alu

"paul" wrote in message
wrote:
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

PiT wrote:
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to
view(!) a
large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse

;o)

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long as you don’t start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It’s a breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

H
Hecate
Mar 23, 2005
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:06:11 -0800, paul wrote:

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

And if you’re in a money spending frame of mind, so does Fireworks and PS definitely isn’t better quality.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
P
PiT
Mar 24, 2005
what’s up, alu? still testing? ;o)


PiT

"alu" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Paul, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
If we don’t here back from PiT, I’ll download the *&^%! apps, run the tests
myself., and get back to ya.
-alu

"paul" wrote in message
wrote:
Want to load hundreds of pics FAST…what do you recommend.

PiT wrote:
alu,
i understand spectre’s question as a question for possibilities to
view(!) a
large number of pics fast. maybe i’m sitting on a wrong (dead?) horse

;o)

I think the OP must be wanting to resize many pictures quickly for web use. I was confused at first too. Irfanview is lightening fast as long as you don’t start with huge tiffs, then it bogs down badly. It’s a breeze to use & you can a little sharpening or adjust contrast, crop, etc.

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

L
Larry
Mar 24, 2005
I ran some tests on Irfanview and XnView…
For equivalent jpg file sizes, Irfanview produces more chroma noise and blocking distortion than PS Save for Web.
Xn-view output is junk, the jpg quality comes nowhere near either of the other apps for equivalent file sizes.
Just for fun, I also tested Advanced JPG Compressor by winsoftmagic, which has dozens of compression options.
PS Save for Web is still the winner.

-alu

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:06:11 -0800, paul wrote:

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

And if you’re in a money spending frame of mind, so does Fireworks and PS definitely isn’t better quality.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
K
KatWoman
Mar 31, 2005
It seems to me the question was about fast loading website not one image. To save images for web I use the "save for web" in PS and Image Ready. But if you put a bunch of even small photos on your webpage it will still take time to load.

If you want to show a lot of images in a website I say use Macromedia Flash. I made 2 websites with multiple images (over 100). I made the first site using the Automate webpage in Photoshop. It’s a nice looking site but loads very slowly. I remade the site using MM Flash and it’s much faster to load all the pictures.

"alu" wrote in message
I ran some tests on Irfanview and XnView…
For equivalent jpg file sizes, Irfanview produces more chroma noise and blocking distortion than PS Save for Web.
Xn-view output is junk, the jpg quality comes nowhere near either of the other apps for equivalent file sizes.
Just for fun, I also tested Advanced JPG Compressor by winsoftmagic, which has dozens of compression options.
PS Save for Web is still the winner.

-alu

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:06:11 -0800, paul wrote:

Irfanview does produce significantly smaller jpegs than PS at equivalent compression positions on their respective sliders (different numbering systems). I assume PS is better quality though I couldn’t really say.

And if you’re in a money spending frame of mind, so does Fireworks and PS definitely isn’t better quality.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections