Ron Clarke wrote: > I have found that "re-sizing" the graphic to the exact size specified > in the web page will do the trick best. It will give you exactly the > right size graphic for ther way you want it shown. PictView will do > that nicely (freeware), as will many others.
But either that's exactly what I did Ron, or I don't understand what you mean. After cropping a 1840x.... (med. res.) jpeg obtained from CD down to its bare essentials, a 1173x.... (same res.) jpeg results. The later resized by PictView to 150x..., when called up as such, gives a terrible blotchy result on my 640x480 screen. Although it doesn't look quite so bad when put into a tabled html format, as instead of taking up about 1/4 of the screen, it now takes up less than 10% of it; but this is on my screen. I imagine that the higher a resolution a screen allows, the blotchier the image will appear; so that making the src image the same as the spec size is the wrong way to go. Not? See also Steve's comments below. Steve Ackman wrote: > If you take a 640x480 picture and view it at 160x120, > it'll look sharp. If you reduce the size of the graphic to > 160x120 first, and then view it at that same size, it will > all depend on what kind of parameters you incorporated into > the size reduction as to how good it looks. Perhaps PictView allows alternate parameters for resizing, but they aren't obvious to me. So the safest is to keep the src at about 640x... when spec'd at about 160x.... Correct? > One of the problems with that bottom graphic on your front > page (I didn't look at the others) is that it seems to have > started out at a smaller size, and was then enlarged. Once > you "grow" a picture and then shrink it again, it never > looks the same. The bottom two, spec'd at 150x100 were sourced at about 1200x...., that's why the page took so long to load and hence you original criticism. That 1200x.... was never enlarged from a smaller res. picture and looks sharp enough when viewed as such, and thus brings up another question. Could the reason my thumbnails look kind of crappy be, because the step from 1200 down to 150 is too great? As you said before, a 640 src viewed at 160 looks sharp. Thanks for your software recommendations. And Sam Ewalt wrote: > This page with the bike pictures loads and displays quite nicely > with my Trident 8900 card and the old 386 and Arachne 1.71r3. Could you tell me what you spec'd in Arachne's setup Sam? Is it Vesa or the one below it on the left side of the page? And anything on the right side? The 256 color, 640x480 screen, and 1MB video ram capabilities don't seem to correspond directly to any of the options. I believe I got better results before, with my on(mother)board video. But I've no idea how to reactivate that one again. I never did any rejumpering, the bios settings don't allow for video card determination; and yet I get a blank screen when I take the trident card out again, plugging the monitor into the motherboard video outlet. >The "invalid parameter" message shows first and then (after considerable >cogitation) the image renders. Same here, but then it's cached; and a reloading (from cache) renders a filename only. >Why not use regular jpegs instead of sequential ones? I think they would >display quicker. I'm limited to use whatever jpegs are supplied by my source and/or conversion software. I really have no idea, but it looks to me that "invalid SOS parameters" and not "sequential" is the malefactor here. Steve's recoding of the jpegs rendered them fine again. But PictView doesn't seem to be able to rectify the miscoding of ftcolor's output; it reads them fine, without giving the "error" message. That's why I'd like to get hold of a different cropping program than ftcolor, so the problem doesn't come up in the first place. John V