Low quality large pictures in articles
Discussion
Clicked to look at the larger pictures (the Jag XJ MY16 article) on my desktop and they are awful! Looked at other articles, and it's the same. The resolution is fine for non-desktop use, no bones there, but these are immensely compressed jpgs and all the detail is gone.
I'm not asking for you to be sending bmps down the tubes, but how about having jpgs for the little thumbnails and pngs or even just less-compressed jpgs for the people who click through to see the large pictures?
I'm not asking for you to be sending bmps down the tubes, but how about having jpgs for the little thumbnails and pngs or even just less-compressed jpgs for the people who click through to see the large pictures?
How does this following image look on your screen
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/32370/jag_xj_04...
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/32370/jag_xj_04...
I posted a topic about image quality and it was ignored. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH needs to move with the times, give me good quality image sizes that use a lightbox so I can scroll. Remove the script that stops me being able to use browser keyboard shortcuts too. Very annoying.
The dial up users excuse is poor nowadays.
That jag photo looks awful, anyone would think it's been stretched with paint.
While I'm ranting, there are several topics in WF that have no staff input. Why are you not having tickets assigned to each topic and make sure someone is responsible. It seems like a shoddy, put your feet up, effort from PH.
PH needs to move with the times, give me good quality image sizes that use a lightbox so I can scroll. Remove the script that stops me being able to use browser keyboard shortcuts too. Very annoying.
The dial up users excuse is poor nowadays.
That jag photo looks awful, anyone would think it's been stretched with paint.
While I'm ranting, there are several topics in WF that have no staff input. Why are you not having tickets assigned to each topic and make sure someone is responsible. It seems like a shoddy, put your feet up, effort from PH.
illmonkey said:
I posted a topic about image quality and it was ignored. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH needs to move with the times, give me good quality image sizes that use a lightbox so I can scroll. Remove the script that stops me being able to use browser keyboard shortcuts too. Very annoying.
The dial up users excuse is poor nowadays.
That jag photo looks awful, anyone would think it's been stretched with paint.
While I'm ranting, there are several topics in WF that have no staff input. Why are you not having tickets assigned to each topic and make sure someone is responsible. It seems like a shoddy, put your feet up, effort from PH.
Sorry there has been no response to those previous threads, I have been working on other projects and not on the forums for the last three weeks - not an excuse, but will address why there has been no response from anyone else from PH. PH needs to move with the times, give me good quality image sizes that use a lightbox so I can scroll. Remove the script that stops me being able to use browser keyboard shortcuts too. Very annoying.
The dial up users excuse is poor nowadays.
That jag photo looks awful, anyone would think it's been stretched with paint.
While I'm ranting, there are several topics in WF that have no staff input. Why are you not having tickets assigned to each topic and make sure someone is responsible. It seems like a shoddy, put your feet up, effort from PH.
It appears the image rescaler is the cause of these issues (this creates the thumbnails and image sizes for the article). But will get hold of originals from editorial and experiment.
As to generating tickets from topics in website feedback. Priority of work comes from the product team and they have a multitude of tasks on the go and limited development resource. Investigating all the comments in here would not be productive when some are limited to a small subset (yes, some are not and should be created as tickets - which is the case)
The lack of comms on this happening though is not excusable and we will work better on that.
Update on this...
So I have got the editorial team to pass down the images they used on the Jag story (as I am sticking to one story as a working example for this).
The images that they have used in the articles, and thus I assume from the press release (which this will be based on) are all 32kb to 64kb in size. I have uploaded one here below....
So the raw image that is used is the source of the issue.
On one where we have taken the shots ourselves... say http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/32393/megane_v_... (from the Megane v Civic R article).
So I have got the editorial team to pass down the images they used on the Jag story (as I am sticking to one story as a working example for this).
The images that they have used in the articles, and thus I assume from the press release (which this will be based on) are all 32kb to 64kb in size. I have uploaded one here below....
So the raw image that is used is the source of the issue.
On one where we have taken the shots ourselves... say http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/32393/megane_v_... (from the Megane v Civic R article).
Wow, that's some awful press-release information.
For what it's worth, though, the Civic in that photo is showing some really obvious compression artefacts - look just abouve the bonnet and roofline, see a slight "ripple" or two of white? And the mesh of the grille isn't very well defined either. Good for a thumbnail size but not at its native resolution. The non-car bits of the picture (gravel, trees) sadly aren't the point of the photo because the artefacts are hidden by the noisy image, but for for cars with all their well defined edges and shapes maybe a less compressed jpg or even a PNG-24 would probably be better. For CGI renders (like Mclaren's weird teasers they do) it may even have a smaller filesize.
For what it's worth, though, the Civic in that photo is showing some really obvious compression artefacts - look just abouve the bonnet and roofline, see a slight "ripple" or two of white? And the mesh of the grille isn't very well defined either. Good for a thumbnail size but not at its native resolution. The non-car bits of the picture (gravel, trees) sadly aren't the point of the photo because the artefacts are hidden by the noisy image, but for for cars with all their well defined edges and shapes maybe a less compressed jpg or even a PNG-24 would probably be better. For CGI renders (like Mclaren's weird teasers they do) it may even have a smaller filesize.
illmonkey said:
Stuff
I am making an assumption here.... But the press releases come out in different ways I am guessing, and the raw images are on servers to go and download, or provided as part of the email press release, or some other way... I am guessing the editorial team are not picking the largest to work with.I did ask for the exact images they used to upload into the site.
Though I am definitely not discounting the software that compresses the images for each article - that is 10 years old, and is to blame for some of this quality reduction.
Whatever's been changed, Pete, it has not helped IMO... and in fact it's gone backwards.
On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
jep said:
Whatever's been changed, Pete, it has not helped IMO... and in fact it's gone backwards.
On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
Sorry, nothing has been changed yet - apart from a polite note to the editorial team to try and insert the best quality images they have as the source. We need to work on the resizer which is a month or so away from being planned in.On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
RacingPete said:
jep said:
Whatever's been changed, Pete, it has not helped IMO... and in fact it's gone backwards.
On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
Sorry, nothing has been changed yet - apart from a polite note to the editorial team to try and insert the best quality images they have as the source. We need to work on the resizer which is a month or so away from being planned in.On an iPad in landscape orientation, the images in any article are all blurred. Not good, but then it's an article, not a slideshow. However, when an image was clicked on, an external tab opened up with the hi-res image. Great, I could then see all the glory details.
Now, the same 600x450 image is used and there is no detail, just a bigger, pixellated and blurred image.
Maybe this isn't the same issue, but I'm sure it's related. I've been wondering about the lower quality images within the text in the articles for a while; I expected it would be fixed. This is what I see:
Linked because it's 1:1.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5L1bG0v1MC_Lax5G...
IMO you should be doing image quality on the level that Speedhunters.com does. The images give life to the articles and blogs.
Linked because it's 1:1.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5L1bG0v1MC_Lax5G...
IMO you should be doing image quality on the level that Speedhunters.com does. The images give life to the articles and blogs.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff