Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #33642, comment 46
- Timestamp:
- 02/28/2016 08:31:18 AM (9 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #33642, comment 46
initial v1 1 1 Hello guys, have to confess it is not 100% clear for me whether you are planning to implement a slider or some UX component to let the users change the default 80%. In some cases image quality is simply vital even if it consumes more bandwith. 2 2 3 Furthermore once i had a site to sell goods. Images were generated with GD2 at the beginning. In case of normal-sized images it was good enough but below 200px the generated images tended to loose on sharpness. A lot. That was why i changed to imagick. Have to admit i used 95% quality but even the tiniest thumbnail was cristal clear that way. Even so filesizes were smaller than that of GD2-generated thumbs.3 Furthermore once i had a site to sell goods. Images were generated with GD2 at the beginning. In case of normal-sized images it was good enough but below 200px the generated images tended to loose on sharpness. A lot. Even when GD was set to 100% quality... That was why i changed to imagick. Have to admit i used 95% quality but even the tiniest thumbnail was cristal clear that way. Even so filesizes were smaller than that of GD2-generated thumbs. 4 4 5 So all i want to point on that thumbnail image sizes might be a bit more tricky asnormal sized images, and you can not spare much bandwith on thumbnails. That is why i think maybe you could set a higher default quality for images that are smaller than 200px or so.5 So all i want to point on that thumbnail image sizes might be a bit more tricky than normal sized images, and you can not spare much bandwith on thumbnails. That is why i think maybe you could set a higher default quality for images that are smaller than 200px or so.