[ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
74 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jussi Hirvi
A new version of LassoBlogger - 0.8.0 - has today been released at
LassoForge.

    http://www.lassoforge.com/projects.lasso?PR=64

It's almost a year since the latest version - and that was a buggy beta
(0.8.0b). So it's about time!

The latest version (0.8.0) should be stable. Some minor new features are
included - see
    http://www.greenspot.fi/LassoBlogger/docs/versionhistory.html
for a list.

...In LassoForge, don't download the old beta by mistake, though it's the
last one in the list (I asked Eric Landmann to repair the sorting order).

BTW - I have finally upgraded my Lasso from v6 to v8.x (a couple of months
ago), and that really helped in degugging - there were fatal L8-specific
bugs in LB, and though I had received reports on them, I douldn't fix them
on my L6 system. Now I hope the code quality is more or less OK.

Happy blogging,
Jussi H.

--
Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot
Topeliuksenkatu 15 C * 00250 Helsinki * Finland
Tel. & fax +358-9-493 981
Mobile +358-40-771 2098 (only text messages)
[hidden email] * http://www.greenspot.fi/


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jolle Carlestam-2
Minor detail. Noticed that you have execute rights set for the .lasso  
files.
-rwxr-x---     1 jolle  mysql   1092 Jul 25 12:44 com-posted.lasso

You should remove that. Using Terminal and after navigating to the  
right dir:
sudo chmod ugo-x *.lasso

And why a group mysql?

HDB
Jolle

25 jul 2007 kl. 16.06 skrev Jussi Hirvi:

> A new version of LassoBlogger - 0.8.0 - has today been released at
> LassoForge.
>
>     http://www.lassoforge.com/projects.lasso?PR=64


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jussi Hirvi
Jolle Carlestam ([hidden email]) kirjoitteli (26.7.2007 08:20):
> Minor detail. Noticed that you have execute rights set for the .lasso
> files.
> -rwxr-x---     1 jolle  mysql   1092 Jul 25 12:44 com-posted.lasso
>
> You should remove that. Using Terminal and after navigating to the
> right dir:
> sudo chmod ugo-x *.lasso

I know  execute right is of no use in .lasso files, but does it harm
anything? .lasso files are not executable anyway by the shell.

> And why a group mysql?

No idea. :-) Before I packed the .zip file (on Linux, using zip on
cmd-line), everything was root:root. The privileges were 750, so I see the
privileges have transrerred right, but the group ownership has not.

Regards,
Jussi

--
Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot
Topeliuksenkatu 15 C * 00250 Helsinki * Finland
Tel. & fax +358-9-493 981
Mobile +358-40-771 2098 (only text messages)
[hidden email] * http://www.greenspot.fi/


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jolle Carlestam-2
26 jul 2007 kl. 09.36 skrev Jussi Hirvi:

>> Minor detail. Noticed that you have execute rights set for the .lasso
>> files.
>> -rwxr-x---     1 jolle  mysql   1092 Jul 25 12:44 com-posted.lasso
>>
>> You should remove that. Using Terminal and after navigating to the
>> right dir:
>> sudo chmod ugo-x *.lasso
>
> I know  execute right is of no use in .lasso files, but does it harm
> anything? .lasso files are not executable anyway by the shell.

I seem to recall having trouble opening files set to be executable.  
But now I don't remember why or or where anymore. (Damn that  
Alzheimer!) But most important, they get the wrong Icon in Finder... :-)

HDB
Jolle

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jussi Hirvi
Jolle Carlestam ([hidden email]) kirjoitteli (26.7.2007 12:31):
> I seem to recall having trouble opening files set to be executable.
> But now I don't remember why or or where anymore. (Damn that
> Alzheimer!) But most important, they get the wrong Icon in Finder... :-)

Bad enough. :-) I usually leave the x bit on - just because it *has* to be
on for directories, and I'm too lazy to give an extra command for *.* files.
And I don't use Finder to look at them files... Maybe I'll give LassoBlogger
files an extra treatment the next time, to be more Finder-friendly. :-)

For the mysql group I have two theories, both rather weak:
1) in your system, the gid for the group "mysql" is 0 (which is the "root"
gid in my system) - though this is not probable
2) the group is based on your enclosing directory group-owner, when you
unzip the package (but why whould it be?)

- Jussi

--
Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot
Topeliuksenkatu 15 C * 00250 Helsinki * Finland
Tel. & fax +358-9-493 981
Mobile +358-40-771 2098 (only text messages)
[hidden email] * http://www.greenspot.fi/


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Optimizing images for the web

Fabrizio Carioni
In reply to this post by Jolle Carlestam-2
I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
quality high and file sizes as low as possible.

After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
following is the correct procedure:

1) File upload the image via browser
2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
more bandwidth.
4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the web.
5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.


Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?

Thanks for any help.

--
======================================================================
Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100 S.r.l.
Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
Voip +39-02-320623001
Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
======================================================================

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jolle Carlestam-2
In reply to this post by Jussi Hirvi
26 jul 2007 kl. 11.58 skrev Jussi Hirvi:

> Jolle Carlestam ([hidden email]) kirjoitteli (26.7.2007 12:31):
>> I seem to recall having trouble opening files set to be executable.
>> But now I don't remember why or or where anymore. (Damn that
>> Alzheimer!) But most important, they get the wrong Icon in  
>> Finder... :-)
>
> Bad enough. :-) I usually leave the x bit on - just because it  
> *has* to be
> on for directories, and I'm too lazy to give an extra command for  
> *.* files.
> And I don't use Finder to look at them files... Maybe I'll give  
> LassoBlogger
> files an extra treatment the next time, to be more Finder-
> friendly. :-)

Thanks!

> For the mysql group I have two theories, both rather weak:
> 1) in your system, the gid for the group "mysql" is 0 (which is the  
> "root"
> gid in my system) - though this is not probable

Nope. gid = 74

> 2) the group is based on your enclosing directory group-owner, when  
> you
> unzip the package (but why whould it be?)

Correct!!! Unpacked in Desktop. For some odd, forgotten (Alzheimer  
again...) reason the group for Desktop was mysql. What's the standard  
group setting for Desktop?

HDB
Jolle

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

John Williscroft
In reply to this post by Fabrizio Carioni
Hi
3) Seems irrelevant to me; if an image is X by Y px then it's X by Y  
px, whether you think it's 72dpi or whatever. There's no difference  
between a 2 by 1 inch image at 144dpi and a 4x2 at 72dpi; they're  
both 288x144 pixels.

Resolution only comes into it when you're printing or displaying at a  
particular size. In the case of a web-page, the image is displayed  
pixel-for-pixel at the resolution of the screen (unless you specify  
different width/height of course).

best rgds
john

On 26 Jul 2007, at 11:02, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:

> I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make  
> sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping  
> quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>
> After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the  
> following is the correct procedure:
>
> 1) File upload the image via browser
> 2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
> 3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image  
> is 72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and  
> consume more bandwidth.
> 4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for  
> the web.
> 5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to  
> 70.
>
>
> Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
> Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>
> Thanks for any help.


www.icatching.eu   t:0845 644 2884   f:0871 733 5358



--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Jussi Hirvi
In reply to this post by Jolle Carlestam-2
Jolle Carlestam ([hidden email]) kirjoitteli (26.7.2007 13:08):
> What's the standard group setting for Desktop?

I only have 10.2, so this is old info - but anyway:

My user-directory Desktop is <user>:staff, 701.
And the root level /Desktop Folder is <first-user>:unknown, 755.

Those are probably default settings - don't remember ever changing them.

- Jussi

--
Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot
Topeliuksenkatu 15 C * 00250 Helsinki * Finland
Tel. & fax +358-9-493 981
Mobile +358-40-771 2098 (only text messages)
[hidden email] * http://www.greenspot.fi/


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Adam Randall-2
In reply to this post by Fabrizio Carioni
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:

> I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
> sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
> quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>
> After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
> following is the correct procedure:
>
> 1) File upload the image via browser
> 2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
> 3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
> 72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
> more bandwidth.
> 4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the web.
> 5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.
>
> Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
> Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?

#3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.

One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in the archives.

For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs in reference to that if you are curious.

Regards,

Adam.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Randall                                       http://www.xaren.net
[hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  blitz574

"Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Fabrizio Carioni
Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
I'll go clean my code.

Thx



>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>  I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
>>  sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
>>  quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>
>>  After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>  following is the correct procedure:
>>
>>  1) File upload the image via browser
>>  2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
>>  72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
>>  more bandwidth.
>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the web.
>>  5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.
>>
>>  Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>  Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>
>#3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has
>nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>
>One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>the archives.
>
>For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>-quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>in reference to that if you are curious.
>
>Regards,
>
>Adam.
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Adam Randall                                       http://www.xaren.net
>[hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  blitz574
>
>"Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
>Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
>thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>
>--
>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/


--
======================================================================
Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
S.r.l.                                                                                
Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
Voip +39-02-320623001
Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
======================================================================

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LassoBlogger 0.8.0 released

Richard Taubo
In reply to this post by Jussi Hirvi
Hi!

On 26. jul. 2007, at 12.08, Jolle Carlestam wrote:

> Correct!!! Unpacked in Desktop. For some odd, forgotten (Alzheimer  
> again...) reason the group for Desktop was mysql. What's the  
> standard group setting for Desktop?


User and Group should both be "jolle" for the Desktop directory on  
your system, given that you are using 10.4.

Best regards,
Richard Taubo

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Steffan A. Cline
In reply to this post by Fabrizio Carioni
3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is true, he
was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one that is
72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that do not
scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures that it
will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have a web
app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I frequently
ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.


Thanks

Steffan

---------------------------------------------------------------
T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
Steffan A. Cline
[hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
                                  Lasso Partner Alliance Member
---------------------------------------------------------------



> From: Fabrizio Carioni <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:45:57 +0200
> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>
> Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
> So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
> I'll go clean my code.
>
> Thx
>
>
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>>  I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
>>>  sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
>>>  quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>>
>>>  After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>>  following is the correct procedure:
>>>
>>>  1) File upload the image via browser
>>>  2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
>>>  72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
>>>  more bandwidth.
>>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the web.
>>>  5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.
>>>
>>>  Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>>  Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>>
>> #3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>> screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has
>> nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>> that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>> can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>> image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>>
>> One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>> that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>> the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>> the archives.
>>
>> For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>> saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>> -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>> percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>> in reference to that if you are curious.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adam.
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Adam Randall                                       http://www.xaren.net
>> [hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  blitz574
>>
>> "Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
>> Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
>> thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>>
>> --
>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
> S.r.l.          
> Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
> Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
> Voip +39-02-320623001
> Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
> ======================================================================
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>



--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Steffan A. Cline
> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is true, he
> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one that is
> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that do not
> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures that it
> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have a web
> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I frequently
> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
In addition to this I use -strip which removes the profile. IE frequently
chokes on that as well. I've been dealing with these issues quite a bit
lately.


Are you doing any conversions?



Thanks

Steffan

---------------------------------------------------------------
T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
Steffan A. Cline
[hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
                                  Lasso Partner Alliance Member
---------------------------------------------------------------



> From: "Steffan A. Cline" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:28:31 -0700
> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>
> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is true, he
> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one that is
> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that do not
> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures that it
> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have a web
> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I frequently
> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Steffan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
> Steffan A. Cline
> [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
> http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
> AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>> From: Fabrizio Carioni <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:45:57 +0200
>> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>
>> Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
>> So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
>> I'll go clean my code.
>>
>> Thx
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>>>  I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
>>>>  sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
>>>>  quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>>>
>>>>  After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>>>  following is the correct procedure:
>>>>
>>>>  1) File upload the image via browser
>>>>  2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>>>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
>>>>  72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
>>>>  more bandwidth.
>>>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the
>>>> web.
>>>>  5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.
>>>>
>>>>  Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>>>  Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>>>
>>> #3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>>> screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has
>>> nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>>> that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>>> can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>>> image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>>>
>>> One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>>> that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>>> the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>>> the archives.
>>>
>>> For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>>> saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>>> -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>>> percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>>> in reference to that if you are curious.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Adam.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Adam Randall                                       http://www.xaren.net
>>> [hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  blitz574
>>>
>>> "Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
>>> Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
>>> thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>>>
>>> --
>>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ======================================================================
>> Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
>> S.r.l.          
>> Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
>> Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
>> Voip +39-02-320623001
>> Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
>> ======================================================================
>>
>> --
>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>



--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Fabrizio Carioni
There is usually no conversion, but i force the images to jpg.

I use this: [$immagine->(Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72 -strip')]
It saves some kb from the file size.
In my tests, a 51Kb image file goes down to 21Kb if I use -strip.
This led me to get confused on the dpi thing.


Thanks for the info.

Ciao






>  > 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is true, he
>>  was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one that is
>>  72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that do not
>>  scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures that it
>>  will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have a web
>>  app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I frequently
>>  ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
>>  having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
>In addition to this I use -strip which removes the profile. IE frequently
>chokes on that as well. I've been dealing with these issues quite a bit
>lately.
>
>
>Are you doing any conversions?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Steffan
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
>Steffan A. Cline
>[hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
>http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
>AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>>  From: "Steffan A. Cline" <[hidden email]>
>>  Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:28:31 -0700
>>  To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>  Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>
>>  3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is true, he
>>  was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one that is
>>  72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that do not
>>  scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures that it
>>  will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have a web
>>  app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I frequently
>>  ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
>>  having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
>>
>>
>>  Thanks
>>
>>  Steffan
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>  T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
>>  Steffan A. Cline
>>  [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
>>  http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
>>  AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>>                                    Lasso Partner Alliance Member
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>>  From: Fabrizio Carioni <[hidden email]>
>>>  Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>>  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:45:57 +0200
>>>  To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>>  Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>>
>>>  Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
>>>  So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
>>>  I'll go clean my code.
>>>
>>>  Thx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>>>>   I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
>>>>>   sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
>>>>>   quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>   After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>>>>   following is the correct procedure:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1) File upload the image via browser
>>>>>   2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>  >>>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the image is
>>>>>   72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and consume
>>>>>   more bandwidth.
>  >>>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it for the
>>>>>  web.
>>>>>   5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted to 70.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>>>>   Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>>>>
>>>>  #3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>>>>  screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has
>>>>  nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>>>>  that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>>>>  can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>>>>  image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>>>>
>>>>  One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>>>>  that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>>>>  the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>>>>  the archives.
>>>>
>>>>  For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>>>>  saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>>>>  -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>>>>  percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>>>>  in reference to that if you are curious.
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>
>>>>  Adam.
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  Adam Randall                                       http://www.xaren.net
>>>>  [hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  blitz574
>>>>
>>>>  "Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
>>>>  Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
>>>>  thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>>  Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>>  Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  ======================================================================
>>>  Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
>>>  S.r.l.        
>>>  Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
>>>  Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
>>>  Voip +39-02-320623001
>>>  Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
>>>  ======================================================================
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>  Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>  Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>  Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>  Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
>
>--
>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/


--
======================================================================
Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
S.r.l.                                                                                
Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
Voip +39-02-320623001
Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
======================================================================

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Marc Pinnell-3
In reply to this post by Steffan A. Cline
I have a photographer client that uploads (via lasso page) images and  
displays them on his website. When I strip the profile it changes the  
color of the image - so I have to leave it. He has never had a  
problem with his images displaying, I wonder if the profile was the  
problem or something else?

Marc


On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Steffan A. Cline wrote:

>> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is  
>> true, he
>> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and  
>> one that is
>> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that  
>> do not
>> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures  
>> that it
>> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I  
>> have a web
>> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I  
>> frequently
>> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show.  
>> After
>> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that  
>> issue.
> In addition to this I use -strip which removes the profile. IE  
> frequently
> chokes on that as well. I've been dealing with these issues quite a  
> bit
> lately.
>
>
> Are you doing any conversions?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Steffan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
> Steffan A. Cline
> [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
> http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
> AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>> From: "Steffan A. Cline" <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:28:31 -0700
>> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>
>> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is  
>> true, he
>> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and  
>> one that is
>> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that  
>> do not
>> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures  
>> that it
>> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I  
>> have a web
>> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I  
>> frequently
>> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show.  
>> After
>> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that  
>> issue.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Steffan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
>> Steffan A. Cline
>> [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
>> http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
>> AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Fabrizio Carioni <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:45:57 +0200
>>> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>>
>>> Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
>>> So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
>>> I'll go clean my code.
>>>
>>> Thx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>>>>  I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to  
>>>>> make
>>>>>  sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web  
>>>>> keeping
>>>>>  quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>  After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>>>>  following is the correct procedure:
>>>>>
>>>>>  1) File upload the image via browser
>>>>>  2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>>>>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the  
>>>>> image is
>>>>>  72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and  
>>>>> consume
>>>>>  more bandwidth.
>>>>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it  
>>>>> for the
>>>>> web.
>>>>>  5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually  
>>>>> setted to 70.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>>>>  Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>>>>
>>>> #3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>>>> screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It  
>>>> has
>>>> nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>>>> that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>>>> can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>>>> image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>>>> that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>>>> the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>>>> the archives.
>>>>
>>>> For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>>>> saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>>>> -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>>>> percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>>>> in reference to that if you are curious.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Adam.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> Adam Randall                                       http://
>>>> www.xaren.net
>>>> [hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  
>>>> blitz574
>>>>
>>>> "Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately  
>>>> about the
>>>> Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if  
>>>> such a
>>>> thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ====================================================================
>>> ==
>>> Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
>>> S.r.l.
>>> Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
>>> Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
>>> Voip +39-02-320623001
>>> Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
>>> ====================================================================
>>> ==
>>>
>>> --
>>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Eric Landmann
Marc Pinnell <[hidden email]> wrote on Thursday, July 26, 2007:

>I have a photographer client that uploads (via lasso page) images and  
>displays them on his website. When I strip the profile it changes the  
>color of the image - so I have to leave it. He has never had a  
>problem with his images displaying, I wonder if the profile was the  
>problem or something else?

Marc:

The profile can definitely be a problem with IE, we have seen that behavior many times. Another problem is with CMYK jpegs, which we convert back to RGB. It is possible your client has simply not run into these. With Graphics Finder, we strip the profile. It is pretty useless on the web, anyway.

--Regards
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Landmann
Landmann InterActive, 2602 Dunwoody Dr., Madison, WI 53713 USA
Voice 608-271-5271  iChat: landintraktv
Content Mangement Systems | eCommerce | Custom Development

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Marc Pinnell-3
I disagree that the profile is useless on the web. I spent many hours  
playing with his images. The images with profiles were DEFINITELY  
displayed differently than those without. The ones without were  
washed out and the color skewed.

Marc


On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Eric Landmann wrote:

> Marc Pinnell <[hidden email]> wrote on Thursday, July  
> 26, 2007:
>
>> I have a photographer client that uploads (via lasso page) images and
>> displays them on his website. When I strip the profile it changes the
>> color of the image - so I have to leave it. He has never had a
>> problem with his images displaying, I wonder if the profile was the
>> problem or something else?
>
> Marc:
>
> The profile can definitely be a problem with IE, we have seen that  
> behavior many times. Another problem is with CMYK jpegs, which we  
> convert back to RGB. It is possible your client has simply not run  
> into these. With Graphics Finder, we strip the profile. It is  
> pretty useless on the web, anyway.
>
> --Regards
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Eric Landmann
> Landmann InterActive, 2602 Dunwoody Dr., Madison, WI 53713 USA
> Voice 608-271-5271  iChat: landintraktv
> Content Mangement Systems | eCommerce | Custom Development
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Eric Landmann
Marc Pinnell <[hidden email]> wrote on Thursday, July 26, 2007:

>I disagree that the profile is useless on the web. I spent many hours  
>playing with his images. The images with profiles were DEFINITELY  
>displayed differently than those without. The ones without were  
>washed out and the color skewed.

In our research, the range of monitor color gamuts, settings, viewing conditions, and viewer perceptions made the problem not worth chasing.

What is your reaction when the client comes to you and says: "This doesn't look like it does on my monitor?" There is no real-world solution to that problem.

--Regards
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Landmann
Landmann InterActive, 2602 Dunwoody Dr., Madison, WI 53713 USA
Voice 608-271-5271  iChat: landintraktv
Content Mangement Systems | eCommerce | Custom Development

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Optimizing images for the web

Mason Miller
In reply to this post by Marc Pinnell-3
You need to have him use sRGB IEC61966(or something like that) as his
profile in Photoshop.  When you strip the profile later, the colors
should match up pretty closely. I would also encourage him to use a
color profiling device on his monitor to make sure he is as close to
standards as possible, so the deviation will hopefully be less between
what he sees, and others see.

Mason

Marc Pinnell wrote:

> I have a photographer client that uploads (via lasso page) images and
> displays them on his website. When I strip the profile it changes the
> color of the image - so I have to leave it. He has never had a problem
> with his images displaying, I wonder if the profile was the problem or
> something else?
>
> Marc
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Steffan A. Cline wrote:
>
>>> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is
>>> true, he
>>> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one
>>> that is
>>> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that
>>> do not
>>> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures
>>> that it
>>> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have
>>> a web
>>> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I
>>> frequently
>>> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
>>> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
>> In addition to this I use -strip which removes the profile. IE
>> frequently
>> chokes on that as well. I've been dealing with these issues quite a bit
>> lately.
>>
>>
>> Are you doing any conversions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Steffan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
>> Steffan A. Cline
>> [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
>> http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
>> AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Steffan A. Cline" <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:28:31 -0700
>>> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>>
>>> 3 was not useless. 3 is important. While most of what Adam said is
>>> true, he
>>> was slightly off on 3. If you take an image that is 300 dpi and one
>>> that is
>>> 72 dpi, the 300 dpi image will appear bigger in some browsers that
>>> do not
>>> scale the images. Reducing to 72dpi reduces the size and insures
>>> that it
>>> will appear the intended size and take up less space. In fact I have
>>> a web
>>> app for a publishing company that gives preview. In Explorer I
>>> frequently
>>> ran into an issue where images that were NOT 72 dpi did not show. After
>>> having changed that to -density or -resample I have not had that issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Steffan
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> T E L  6 0 2 . 5 7 9 . 4 2 3 0 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
>>> Steffan A. Cline
>>> [hidden email]                             Phoenix, Az
>>> http://www.ExecuChoice.net                                  USA
>>> AIM : SteffanC          ICQ : 57234309
>>>                                   Lasso Partner Alliance Member
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Fabrizio Carioni <[hidden email]>
>>>> Reply-To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:45:57 +0200
>>>> To: Lasso Talk <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Optimizing images for the web
>>>>
>>>> Thank you guys for the explanation on the resolution.
>>>> So basically adding point 3 was totally useless.
>>>> I'll go clean my code.
>>>>
>>>> Thx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:02:39 +0200, Fabrizio Carioni wrote:
>>>>>>  I have image upload procedures on many sites and I'm trying to make
>>>>>>  sure I'm doing the best to have image optimized for the web keeping
>>>>>>  quality high and file sizes as low as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  After reading through lasso talk and doing some tests I feel the
>>>>>>  following is the correct procedure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  1) File upload the image via browser
>>>>>>  2) Cast the image to a lasso image var.
>>>>>>  3) Use [Execute: 'mogrify -density 72x72'] to make sure the
>>>>>> image is
>>>>>>  72dpi. A higher resolution will only make the file bigger and
>>>>>> consume
>>>>>>  more bandwidth.
>>>>>>  4) Scale the image with the '-thumbnail' option to optimize it
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> web.
>>>>>>  5) Save the image using the '-Quality' parameter. Usually setted
>>>>>> to 70.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Point 3 is new to me and I just introduced it in the procedures.
>>>>>>  Anyone sees some big mistake in all this?
>>>>>
>>>>> #3 is irrelevant. DPI may affect the display of an image on the
>>>>> screen in some rare cases, but it's technically a print term. It has
>>>>> nothing to do with the screen pixel density. You can have an image
>>>>> that is 400 pixels by 300 pixels, and have it have a DPI of 72. You
>>>>> can have the same size image with a DPI of 300x300, but the 300DPI
>>>>> image has no more pixels than the one that is 72DPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> One more thing you should do is purge the profile from the image so
>>>>> that it doesn't affect Internet Explorer after upload. I don't have
>>>>> the code on hand how to do that, but it's very simple and it's in
>>>>> the archives.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the most part, everything else is fine. Make sure that you are
>>>>> saving as JPG. PNG, which is an awesome format, does not use the
>>>>> -quality parameter in the same way as JPEGs do. where JPEGs are a
>>>>> percentage, like you expect, PNG is not. Find the ImageMagick docs
>>>>> in reference to that if you are curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam Randall                                      
>>>>> http://www.xaren.net
>>>>> [hidden email]                                   AIM/iChat:  
>>>>> blitz574
>>>>>
>>>>> "Macintosh users are a special case. They care passionately about the
>>>>> Mac OS and would rewire their own bodies to run on Mac OS X if such a
>>>>> thing were possible." -- Peter H. Lewis
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --======================================================================
>>>>
>>>> Fabrizio Carioni - Golem100
>>>> S.r.l.
>>>> Gran Sasso (via), 50 - 20090 - Segrate (Mi) - Italy
>>>> Voice +39-02-2133402  -  Fax +39-02-93650749  - Mobile 3356463448 -
>>>> Voip +39-02-320623001
>>>> Email [hidden email] - URL http://www.golem100.com/
>>>> ======================================================================
>>>>
>>>> --This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
> --This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

1234