The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I put my InstantPro website to NetMechanic to check loading times and was very disappointed with the results. The home page took 7.2 secs. @ 2Mpps and 48.46 secs. @ 56Kbps. What stood out in particular was the time taken by the banner which Netmechanic said was 171.87Kb. and simply must be reduced. Right clicking on the image on the webpage confirms this size.
When starting to build the site I had tried "Breeze", one of the samples, to gauge the effect of a banner, although I intended to replace it with a photo of my own. The pic. I finally uploaded was 41.8Kb after cropping, size reducing and compacting. How then has it increased 4-fold? The HTML shows the banner as "Breeze", not my photo number. Is this, somehow, the answer?
But if so, it doesn't account for many other images I have checked on other pages. Two I uploaded at 37.2Kb and 38.7Kb show up as 385Kb and 362.75Kb respectively. 10-fold increase! Not only do they all differ from what I uploaded, but what is stranger is that some increase in size and others decrease.
What is going on?
My site is www.hedera.ukpc.net, although you have only my word for the fact that the pics. change size in mid-air before landing.
Help, somebody.
Thanks.
When starting to build the site I had tried "Breeze", one of the samples, to gauge the effect of a banner, although I intended to replace it with a photo of my own. The pic. I finally uploaded was 41.8Kb after cropping, size reducing and compacting. How then has it increased 4-fold? The HTML shows the banner as "Breeze", not my photo number. Is this, somehow, the answer?
But if so, it doesn't account for many other images I have checked on other pages. Two I uploaded at 37.2Kb and 38.7Kb show up as 385Kb and 362.75Kb respectively. 10-fold increase! Not only do they all differ from what I uploaded, but what is stranger is that some increase in size and others decrease.
What is going on?
My site is www.hedera.ukpc.net, although you have only my word for the fact that the pics. change size in mid-air before landing.
Help, somebody.
Thanks.
Page:
eeek! wrote:
> If I delete my banner first
> using option 1 on the Banner & Logo Settings page this will
> upset the page layout throughout the site and I don't trust it to
> resume normality when I reload.
Nope, just re-upload you banner and it will overwrite the current one. The dimension will remain the same.
> Will it be OK to do this while the site remains live? Or should I
> take it offline then republish it afterwards? If the latter, it
> won't be treated as a new site with all the Google verification
> to do again, and the loss of the Google Webmaster Stats I now
> have, will it?? or will it?
Taking your site offline for a short will have no effect on Google's Webmaster tools and you won't have to reverify the site. Googlebot, if it visits your site during this time, will just see the site as unavailable.
> If I delete my banner first
> using option 1 on the Banner & Logo Settings page this will
> upset the page layout throughout the site and I don't trust it to
> resume normality when I reload.
Nope, just re-upload you banner and it will overwrite the current one. The dimension will remain the same.
> Will it be OK to do this while the site remains live? Or should I
> take it offline then republish it afterwards? If the latter, it
> won't be treated as a new site with all the Google verification
> to do again, and the loss of the Google Webmaster Stats I now
> have, will it?? or will it?
Taking your site offline for a short will have no effect on Google's Webmaster tools and you won't have to reverify the site. Googlebot, if it visits your site during this time, will just see the site as unavailable.
Eccles wrote:
> JPEG can be
> lossless.
> Anyway we're getting off track and not really helping the OP!
> Constructive criticism accepted!
>
> You may have to re-upload images that are bigger than they should
> be but images used in the WYSIWYG editor or galleries will have
> to be deleted first otherwise those will the same file names will
> just have their file names incremented, resulting in 2 versions.
This is where I get really nervous. If I delete my banner first using option 1 on the Banner & Logo Settings page this will upset the page layout throughout the site and I don't trust it to resume normality when I reload. I've had awkward moments with InstantPro particularly as a result of the July 09 upgrade, when you've never seen such a mess and I had to redo a lot of my site.
If I go ahead I'm thinking of first replacing my banner by choosing option 3 "Use default banner" then replacing that in turn by my own. What do you think?
Will it be OK to do this while the site remains live? Or should I take it offline then republish it afterwards? If the latter, it won't be treated as a new site with all the Google verification to do again, and the loss of the Google Webmaster Stats I now have, will it?? or will it?
BTW, Webmaster has suddenly produced a new Labs Site Performance today: pages average 0.6secs, faster than 95% of sites. That I find difficult to believe, and they add the usual disclaimer on accuracy, but it's encouraging. Ties in with Warhunt's download of less than 1 sec @6Mbps.
I just dread monkeying about with the site.
Has anyone any ideas on my posting 18 Feb. 11.50a.m.? In answer to Hmmm's helpful offer to look at any other problem pics. I gave a list and wonder if anyone has any solutions.
> JPEG can be
> lossless.
> Anyway we're getting off track and not really helping the OP!
> Constructive criticism accepted!
>
> You may have to re-upload images that are bigger than they should
> be but images used in the WYSIWYG editor or galleries will have
> to be deleted first otherwise those will the same file names will
> just have their file names incremented, resulting in 2 versions.
This is where I get really nervous. If I delete my banner first using option 1 on the Banner & Logo Settings page this will upset the page layout throughout the site and I don't trust it to resume normality when I reload. I've had awkward moments with InstantPro particularly as a result of the July 09 upgrade, when you've never seen such a mess and I had to redo a lot of my site.
If I go ahead I'm thinking of first replacing my banner by choosing option 3 "Use default banner" then replacing that in turn by my own. What do you think?
Will it be OK to do this while the site remains live? Or should I take it offline then republish it afterwards? If the latter, it won't be treated as a new site with all the Google verification to do again, and the loss of the Google Webmaster Stats I now have, will it?? or will it?
BTW, Webmaster has suddenly produced a new Labs Site Performance today: pages average 0.6secs, faster than 95% of sites. That I find difficult to believe, and they add the usual disclaimer on accuracy, but it's encouraging. Ties in with Warhunt's download of less than 1 sec @6Mbps.
I just dread monkeying about with the site.
Has anyone any ideas on my posting 18 Feb. 11.50a.m.? In answer to Hmmm's helpful offer to look at any other problem pics. I gave a list and wonder if anyone has any solutions.
JPEG can be lossless.
Anyway we're getting off track and not really helping the OP! Constructive criticism accepted!
You may have to re-upload images that are bigger than they should be but images used in the WYSIWYG editor or galleries will have to be deleted first otherwise those will the same file names will just have their file names incremented, resulting in 2 versions.
Anyway we're getting off track and not really helping the OP! Constructive criticism accepted!
You may have to re-upload images that are bigger than they should be but images used in the WYSIWYG editor or galleries will have to be deleted first otherwise those will the same file names will just have their file names incremented, resulting in 2 versions.
LukeM wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in
> imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an
> image resource was created by loading a jpeg.
>
> The image quality thing (1-100%) only actually relates to jpeg
> encoding. And I know that from the saving options in PhotoShop.
> All image formats have different ways of storing information and
> compressing it if it.
You're telling the wrong person I think.... :-)
And the scale isnt a percentage. Its not linear and in fact jpeg couldnt do 100% even if it wanted to because its not a lossless format.
> Whether or not the imported jpeg is converted to GD's own format
> for playing around with is besides the point.
I'd say its quite relevant if you dont understand why loading a jpeg into GD and resaving it can produce a larger file.
> Garin wrote:
> Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in
> imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an
> image resource was created by loading a jpeg.
>
> The image quality thing (1-100%) only actually relates to jpeg
> encoding. And I know that from the saving options in PhotoShop.
> All image formats have different ways of storing information and
> compressing it if it.
You're telling the wrong person I think.... :-)
And the scale isnt a percentage. Its not linear and in fact jpeg couldnt do 100% even if it wanted to because its not a lossless format.
> Whether or not the imported jpeg is converted to GD's own format
> for playing around with is besides the point.
I'd say its quite relevant if you dont understand why loading a jpeg into GD and resaving it can produce a larger file.
Thanks for all the help. I uploaded my original 41.8Kb banner and Hmmm's 25Kb version to my sandbox and sizes were both correct. Now, thickie question: do I just upload my original on top of existing pic. without deleting it, and using option 5 in the Editor?
Hmmm asked about other problem images. Most pics. throughout the site are enlarged, a few reduced. The following samples are bad or atrocious, I show website size followed by my original uploaded size:
http://www.hedera.ukpc.net/ticket_to_oz.html
4th pic. down (landscape) 98.57 45.9
down to small pics. at side of poem:
flight bag 362.75 38.7
handbag 385.54 37.2
optics 92.03 44.4
maps 89.32 44.2
hat 76.04 38.7
http://www.hedera.ukpc.net/perth.html
5th pic down right hand floral 97.33 45.4
left fountain 91.73 43.8
right " 97.33 45.4
single " 62.83 25.6
boab tree left 91.17 28.9
" " right 71.95 43.4
Aboriginal story teller left 87.88 42.8
" " " right 79.43 39.2
yet the honkey nut lower down 13.26 20.1 and there a few other reductions scattered about.
I've no sophisticated photo software, just been using MS.Office Picture Manager, first reducing pic. to the pixel size I want then setting MOPM to compact it for the Web. Occasionally used Irfan to straighten first, but that wouldn't have carried any baggage, it in fact reduced the pixel size.
I tried pics. in the Bench Ends section Dennington page and they are mostly all enlarged, but only by 13-19Kb on my sizes ranging from 39-48Kb. Yet even that surely shouldn't occur?
Cheers
Hmmm asked about other problem images. Most pics. throughout the site are enlarged, a few reduced. The following samples are bad or atrocious, I show website size followed by my original uploaded size:
http://www.hedera.ukpc.net/ticket_to_oz.html
4th pic. down (landscape) 98.57 45.9
down to small pics. at side of poem:
flight bag 362.75 38.7
handbag 385.54 37.2
optics 92.03 44.4
maps 89.32 44.2
hat 76.04 38.7
http://www.hedera.ukpc.net/perth.html
5th pic down right hand floral 97.33 45.4
left fountain 91.73 43.8
right " 97.33 45.4
single " 62.83 25.6
boab tree left 91.17 28.9
" " right 71.95 43.4
Aboriginal story teller left 87.88 42.8
" " " right 79.43 39.2
yet the honkey nut lower down 13.26 20.1 and there a few other reductions scattered about.
I've no sophisticated photo software, just been using MS.Office Picture Manager, first reducing pic. to the pixel size I want then setting MOPM to compact it for the Web. Occasionally used Irfan to straighten first, but that wouldn't have carried any baggage, it in fact reduced the pixel size.
I tried pics. in the Bench Ends section Dennington page and they are mostly all enlarged, but only by 13-19Kb on my sizes ranging from 39-48Kb. Yet even that surely shouldn't occur?
Cheers
HM wrote:
> Interestingly enough, InstantPro sites tend to load up quickest
> on my mobile phone browser. Do freeola optimise InstantPro for
> mobiles at all, or is this coincidence? Either way, it's pretty
> good for showing the site to people on the move :)
We don't actually do any performance enhancing for mobile phones at the moment, however it is most likely your mobile phone browser or your provide caching content and making it quicker for you to access.
> Interestingly enough, InstantPro sites tend to load up quickest
> on my mobile phone browser. Do freeola optimise InstantPro for
> mobiles at all, or is this coincidence? Either way, it's pretty
> good for showing the site to people on the move :)
We don't actually do any performance enhancing for mobile phones at the moment, however it is most likely your mobile phone browser or your provide caching content and making it quicker for you to access.
Garin wrote:
> Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in
> imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an
> image resource was created by loading a jpeg.
The image quality thing (1-100%) only actually relates to jpeg encoding. And I know that from the saving options in PhotoShop. All image formats have different ways of storing information and compressing it if it.
Whether or not the imported jpeg is converted to GD's own format for playing around with is besides the point.
> Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in
> imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an
> image resource was created by loading a jpeg.
The image quality thing (1-100%) only actually relates to jpeg encoding. And I know that from the saving options in PhotoShop. All image formats have different ways of storing information and compressing it if it.
Whether or not the imported jpeg is converted to GD's own format for playing around with is besides the point.
Interestingly enough, InstantPro sites tend to load up quickest on my mobile phone browser. Do freeola optimise InstantPro for mobiles at all, or is this coincidence? Either way, it's pretty good for showing the site to people on the move :)
GD supports alpha channels, if PNG or any other file format supports them, why wouldnt it import them into the image resource?
Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an image resource was created by loading a jpeg. I'm sure if such behaviour did exist it would be documented and/or observed. And I've even just had a glance at the GD source code and I cant find any indication of what you're suggesting so far.
Basically what you're suggesting is that the quality value in imagejpeg would mean something different depending on whether an image resource was created by loading a jpeg. I'm sure if such behaviour did exist it would be documented and/or observed. And I've even just had a glance at the GD source code and I cant find any indication of what you're suggesting so far.
Linky
'One thing to keep in mind is that you can never optimize an image to higher quality than the quality of the original image. So, if an image was saved in PhotoShop as a low quality image, and then you try to optimize it in PHP, you will never be able to increase the image past the quality of the original low quality image.'.
Not saying you are wrong Garin, it's an interesting debate, seems to confuse a few people using GD.
If GD just creates an image resource without format info then I'm not sure how you can pass it a transparent PNG and then still save the result as a PNG and preserve the alpha channel. I'm guessing extra info is avalable depending on the file type passed to it.
Another thing I've noticed is GD specifies quality from 0 - 95 yet PHP allows 0 - 100 so the last 5 has not effect.
I wonder if ImageMagick produces better results?
'One thing to keep in mind is that you can never optimize an image to higher quality than the quality of the original image. So, if an image was saved in PhotoShop as a low quality image, and then you try to optimize it in PHP, you will never be able to increase the image past the quality of the original low quality image.'.
Not saying you are wrong Garin, it's an interesting debate, seems to confuse a few people using GD.
If GD just creates an image resource without format info then I'm not sure how you can pass it a transparent PNG and then still save the result as a PNG and preserve the alpha channel. I'm guessing extra info is avalable depending on the file type passed to it.
Another thing I've noticed is GD specifies quality from 0 - 95 yet PHP allows 0 - 100 so the last 5 has not effect.
I wonder if ImageMagick produces better results?
Page: