Re: Image sizes

I would welcome someone taking an attempt to turn this
into rewritten guidance for the FAQ.  Seems there are some nuances...

I don't really use the epubs that much.  Can someone mention how well
things work if we use medium-resolution images, that can click to high
resolution images?  (a) are they all just packaged in the .epub,
regardless, and (b) once the image is downloaded to a device, are
large images a problem to display (i.e., slow due to file size)?

For phones, limited bandwidth etc., presumably people who are
reasonably concerned and/or experienced will just select the version
without images.

  -- Greg

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 07:07:33PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d-4LCm/o+qPMZ96Xl/[email protected]
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d