Re: Image sizing
Posted by
Harvey on
Nov 24, 2011; 12:28pm
URL: https://support.nabble.com/Image-sizing-tp7027028p7027940.html
GregChapman wrote
The CSS you quote forces the browser to re-size an image. Getting the browser to do that is generally a bad idea, especially if the original shot was a massive file straight from a camera. The browser will still need to download the full file, and then has to do the work on rescaling before it is displayed, so not only may it take some time to appear on screen on a slow connection but to compensate browsers use the crudest, roughest, down-scaling algorithm possible. Result: blurry images.
I guess that Nabble's scale-on-upload facility uses similar less than ideal scaling technology.
Generally, dedicated image editing software will provide a much better result at scaling, allowing you to select various algorithms and options for the best result with your particular image. Uploading an image that you have prepared for output at a particular size will always be the best option.
Greg thanks for this info it is very helpful.
Questions:
For my own use I have been sizing images to 1000 px and then choosing the 750 pixel size and that seems to work ok.
Is it BETTER to have a size that is close in size that one that is being "forced" alot (ie I am only forcing from 1000 to 750).
Is it ideal just to export sizes the exact size they will be used?
Is there any difference between using the CSS above, choosing the sizes from the INSERT IMAGE size options or adding width="750" inline? Are those all basically the same in terms of image quality?
HTTPS Please!