Opinions please - image quality VS file size.

[-db-]

Hello everyone. I need some honest feedback for a decision I have to make. I'm working on a site, and the header graphic is large and pretty fancy. I'm trying to find the right balance between image quality and file size.

When saved as a JPG.
There are many artifacts in the image unless I save it using the highest quality setting. At the highest quality setting, it looks GREAT, PERFECT, but it's also 103K file size and this bothers me.

When saved as a GIF.
There are no artifacts, but the overall quality is lower due to the number of colors being limited at 256. I would estimate the GIF's image quality at 75% of the (highest setting) JPG's quality. Since I described the JPG looking "great", I would have to describe the GIF as looking "good". The file size is only 35K though, and that's 1/3 the size of the JPG.

So what would you do?

Use the great looking JPG, and not worry about the 103K file size?

Use the GIF? It doesn't look perfect like the JPG, but it still looks good, and only 35K.

*The image is not available for public viewing at this time.

 

[Epic]

Most people have high speed internet now, so 100K is nothing.

If it was a big concern for you though you create a splash page and have the user select high speed or low speed.

 

[leviathon]

I had the exact same question in my head a while ago, and I know the size problem may slow down a site's performance. However! That's when I encountered this tutorial:

http://zymic.com/view_tutorial.php?id=126

Reducing image size of JPEG without losing any quality.


If that's not what you're looking for and if you were only asking if JPEG's better than GIF or not, I'd say I'd go with GIF. My philosophy is Quality < Performance.

Most people have high speed internet now, so 100K is nothing.

If it was a big concern for you though you create a splash page and have the user select high speed or low speed.

Some screenshot webpages (I personally own one myself) contains an inventory of over 1300+ [1600x1200] screenshots. It used to be a HUGE problem since my site may load terribly slow if they were all 200KB each. Even with broadband internet it may still load like a dial-up.

 

[RJ]

Is the domain a mixture of text and pictures? If so, maybe you can split it up into multiple images and decide on each fragment if .GIF (for text) or .JPG (pictures) is better?

If you're stuck with the choice, I'd go with the higher file size. Depending on your software, you might be able to optimize that .JPG even more to get the file size lower while keeping a better quality appearance than the .GIF.

 

[smub]

i'll say go with .jpg ... or what you can do is basically wat RJ said: change the other parts of the template to .gif and let the header be .jpg so it can be balanced

 

[holeinone]

Depends On the Size of the banner...The LOGO, THE website name etc.(The Most Visible parts) can be in .JPG and the Other Parts can be in .GIF...I've Tried it out and is more than "GOOD" ....

 

[Maverick]

I'd go with the .gif strictly because there's still a big percentage of online users who are still shugging away on the 56k modems. I woulnd't want to alienate them because of the load time. Though I would look around first to see if there's a way to cut the size down without losing the quality.

 

[weblord]

i say i go for image quality without reading other's reply. with dsl and broadband connections it will be ok :imho: and very impressive to the eyes but provide some low res first and then going to highres. i forgot what it's called.

 

[Keral_Patel]

Have you tried PNG?

I have had this kind of probelm. And triedn PNG it is similar to GIF in size and Similar to JPG in quality.

And if the perosn who owns this site does wants effect and qulaity then surely go with JPG.

Thanks.

 

[Rowan W]

Have you tried PNG?

I have had this kind of probelm. And triedn PNG it is similar to GIF in size and Similar to JPG in quality.

That's right, sometimes a PNG can have better quality than JPG and at the same time be smaller than a GIF. However it depends how many colours there are, etc.

Personally I wouldn't ever go above 40KB for a header image, it's not worth it.

 

[Ben42]

What program are you using to export the image?

If it's going to be used on a busy page (home page, ect) I would go with the smaller size. Whole pages really shouldn't be much more than 100k. You'd be amazed what percent of the population is still on dialup.

If it's a site for gamers or computer geeks go with the quality as most of us have high speed.

 

[Carlton]

100k jpg for a really nice header is fine. For dial-up, it will likely be saved in cache so reloads will be very quick following the original page load. 100k for broadband is a non-issue.

 

[-db-]

Thank you to EVERYONE that replied. It's nice of you taking the time to give your input. I appreciate it very much guys, and it's very valuable to me.

I'm trying several different suggestions you posted, and will post a link to some results soon.

RJ, regarding your question - yes indeed, it's the combination of text and images that's creating the artifacts. It seems that I've attempted to cram so much diversity of image types into a single image (mascot character, logo text, detailed background, etc.) that there is no longer a one-size-fits-all solution for the quality I'm seeking.

nick_mayhem, regarding your question - Yes, I'm experimenting with PNG now too.

Ben42, regarding your question - I'm using Photoshop.

 

[LeetPCUser]

JPG for banner but then I would recommend gif for the rest?

 

[jimws111]

Just so you know the numbers its 60% still on dial up but that rate is getting smaller daily as everyone wants to go where the big dogs run. If it takes more than ten seconds to load you'll lose most of your viewers. It may be wise to start with GIF and later on when more folks are jumpin on the broadband wagon update it with your JPG. Another way may be to check there connection first and apply certain tags in regaurds to that. it takes alot of time but it's beeter than losing alot of viewers.