Hot answers tagged jpeg
JPEGs are not always smaller in size than PNGs. Each format has its uses. JPEGs are great for complex images like photographs and will have a smaller file size than PNGs when compressing a photo. PNGs are great for logos or buttons and will be smaller than a JPEG when compressing those kinds of images. JPEGs do not support transparency so what you're ...
I usually save images as progressive. I have never experienced or heard of drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some very old browser might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so it is not a big issue. Progressive JPEG images are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive. For example, an 8K ...
Progressive JPEG has had scattershot support since inception. The Wikipedia page on JPEG says: However, progressive JPEGs are not as widely supported, and even some software which does support them (such as versions of Internet Explorer before Windows 7) only displays the image after it has been completely downloaded. N.B. The ...
JPG for photos or high color differences PNG for images with gradual transparency (fade from 1 color to clear) GIF for images with small color palettes Obviously give each image a try and see what comes out to the smallest file size. The smaller the size the better. Also don't worry about transparency in IE6 for your PNG's, grandma isn't as concerned how ...
Artlung covered some support considerations, but there's also the fact that it's just not going to matter most of the time. The important bit in the question is "until it's fully loaded." The progressive format isn't an aesthetic nicety that makes the image blur in, it's functional: If an image is large enough(by filesize) that it take a while to download, ...
ImageMagick (and the iMagick extension if you're using PHP) should work reasonably well for this task.
File size. The smaller the file size the faster it will download for your users. So go for the smallest file size that doesn't affect your image quality. (Generally speaking JPGs are used for photographs and PNGs/GIFs are used for icon-like images)
Google uses progressive-like loading of their images in images.google.com At first they stretch thumb to preview dimensions and then they load original image over. I think that is a good practice. Just like Progressive JPEG
Progressive rendering (gif/jpeg) was for the good old days of the internet where servers were slow and final mile data transfer was done at a crawl through POTS. Nobody wastes time on it anymore. So many of my website audience is on broadband that it serves no purpose other than a minimal fade in effect on a very large image (though on 8MB cable, it's ...
I think Marco's comment is the correct answer in this instance, whilst most do ones that don't will display the image anyway. Something you might find useful is this Wikipedia article on Browser Image Format support.
I still haven't figured out an easy way to get the JPEG XR and downloadable F# code files to go into the *.cspkg file, but I did get the files to work on my Web Role. I had to follow Mr. Vipul Patel's instructions in his article Using Windows Azure Storage Service to Upload Files to create a storage service and then put the affected files in the blob. ...
JPEG compression artefacts would mean that a lot of pixels you might expect to be #d67fff aren't - unless you use lossless JPEG, in which case you're not getting the compression benefits you expressly want. In the future you may be able to do this with CSS clip, but at the moment arbitrary polygons don't see to be supported. The best way to achieve this ...
Browser Support. I think it's IE6 or IE7 and older do not support png based images with a transparent background properly. It usually adds some funky background color.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible