Re: Image sizes

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, James Adcock wrote:
> A recent book I did has 82 woodblock prints. I cut the image sizes down as
> much as I could with turning the woodblocks into horrible messes.  The
> resulting sizes where 60-100k each.  The resulting PG MOBI files (which
> granted, are Amazonian caca nowadays) are 13 megs.  And these are what I
> consider to be "small" images.  To well-preserve the woodblock prints in
> their original glory would have required much larger files.

Since the FAQ says 40-60K, you're just admitted that actually following the
FAQ's recommendations leads to horrible messes.  Furthermore, going to FAQ
size would reduce your 13 megs to about 8 megs, which is less bandwidth, but
not so much less that you wouldn't notice it if you'd notice 13.

I would suggest that it's become bimodal.  A phone on a data plan has a strict
bandwidth limit, and often a smaller screen, compared to a computer from
2004.  On the other hand, a recent tablet used on a wi-fi connection probably
has a much higher screen resolution and bandwidth than a computer from 2004.
(That's why I suggested changing the FAQ to begin with: I downloaded the
Adventures of Captain Hatteras, by Jules Verne, and tried to read it on a
tablet with a 2560x1536 screen.  The images *are* horrible messes.)

I *don't* think the solution is to just keep the 2004 standards.  It would be
better to upload images in better-than-2004 resolutions and automatically
generate additional versions with no images or with shrunken images (aren't
mobile versions without images automatically generated anyway?)  If you store
large images you can shrink them, but if you store small images, the
information from the large images is lost.
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d-4LCm/o+qPMZ96Xl/[email protected]
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d