Timeline for Image quality loss with size reduction
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/ with https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:41 | comment | added | cockypup | @user3504783: No problem. Take a look at my latest edit. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:23 | history | edited | cockypup | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1165 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:14 | comment | added | user3504783 | Oh and thank you for all the links! I will definitely follow your advice there! | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:13 | comment | added | user3504783 | You're also right about the image being displayed at 100% width of its container element. That makes a lot of sense. I'll try to figure that part out and get help at StackOverflow if I can't. Aside from that, I still think it would be a good idea to make the original image smaller when I never want to display it at bigger than 63% of its original size, but it just doesn't look good anymore when I reduce its size. Should I just leave it bigger, or is there a better way to make it smaller other than Bicubic Sharpener? | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | user3504783 | When you compare Pic 3 and Pic 4, look at the red lines, especially the long bottom right one. It's easier to see on a dark background like the black background you chose. Can you see the difference? Or is it just all in my head? Or is it just my computer screen? | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | user3504783 | Thank you so much for making this clear for me. Yes, the 2nd and 4th pictures are from the same source file. I can see now what you (and probably also AndrewH) mean - the screenshot (2nd) does look larger than the source file (4th). I'm not sure why my screen shot turned out that way (and I'm sorry I didn't realize it earlier!), but on my website, it's actually the same size (as Pic 4 and as yours). Pic 4 does not look good to me though. It's not super blurry, but also not as crisp as the browser-scaled version of Pic 1. Even in your example, it looks bad to me. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 15:49 | history | edited | cockypup | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 452 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2016 at 15:39 | history | answered | cockypup | CC BY-SA 3.0 |