Image Raper . . .

[desktopjockey]

Ok, I have an image that's 1024x768 @ 16M (.jpg format already)colors that I want to put in a web page. Because this would be INSANE to download at 56K, I need to divvy it up into an 8x8 table of images (size 128x96 each).

How can I easily(?) and accurately divide this image into those sections without croping and pasting? I'm currently using PaintShop Pro 6 for my image editing. Are there any free tools that may assist with this?

[Sky]

hmm.... lessie..... go....from (in psp) the open image>file>export>image slicer

[desktopjockey]

Dave - will reset the image as suggested.

Any other suggestions?

[Waves]

Another option could be to make an image progress bar. This would be a visual aid to your viewers so at least they would know when the picture would load. dynamicdrive.com may have something like that.

[BoR|S]

No No, I think he meant something else, there are those scripts to preload images, and you can make a JS that will display a progress bar win persents untill all the images on the webpage will load...

[Stiffy]

Originally posted by desktopjockey
[B]Ok, I have an image that's 1024x768 @ 16M (.jpg format already)colors that I want to put in a web page. Because this would be INSANE to download at 56K, I need to divvy it up into an 8x8 table of images (size 128x96 each).

Even if you slice it up it'll still be a total whore to download over a dialup connection. I'm stuck on dialup at home so I seriously doubt I'd wait around for it to download either way unless I was given a thumbnail preview to see if I wanted to wait for the full size image to download.

Stiffy
http://www.12footcock.com

[BoR|S]

"Stuck on a dial-up connection"!

Until last year, here in Israel you had to be very greatful if you were able to connect at more than 28,800 bps, and now they upgraded the phone lines (now max is 52,000 bps) and also finnaly approved the so called 'fast internet' such as ADSL & Cable connections...

So I don't get it when people comlain about them having dial-up, I download movies with dial-up, and I'd continue to be happy with my dial-up connection but now I gonna get ADSL free of charge (I don't feel like to paying for an Internet connection, this one is free, and so the ADSL will be.)

[Waves]

Originally posted by BoR|S
No No, I think he meant something else, there are those scripts to preload images, and you can make a JS that will display a progress bar win persents untill all the images on the webpage will load...

Yes. That is why I was talking about. Here is an example page

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex4/preloadimage.htm

It displays a progress bar before the images will be displayed

[HZR]

Check this one too >> http://stilleye.com/scripts/seLoader/

[pezland]

One note: I'd advise against progressive/interlaced graphic files. It increases the filesize, which translates into an additional eon on a 56k dialup.

[Jhereg]

Why not post a thumbnail of the image that links to the original image and have it target a new window.

:cool:

[desktopjockey]

I want to use the file as a background for this page. I understand downloading such a large file as a single image is a total b!@#$ on a dialup, hence the reason for slicing it up into several pieces. Here's an example of what I'm trying to do:

http://www.pagetutor.com/members/pagetutor/tables/lesson15.html

This site is a subscription site, so I'm not sure if just anyone can access this page. In essence what the author is tutoring is that large images can be divided up into smaller images in a table to ease download times. My questions is how do you break up the image in the first place into smaller files comprising the total image to place in the table? :hmmmm:

[DCElliott]

Backgrounds rarely have to be highly detailed because that would interfere with the text. Often they are quite faded and have a limited colour scale so consider dropping the colour depth to 256 and saving it as a gif. I'm sure you can cut that feller down to size.

DE

[Dynasty]

Splitting up images means the user has more to download in total, but it gives the impression of faster loading, my advice is if you have a picture you think you need to split for it to load fast enough, then it isn't worth doing because the image is too big.

[Orange]

Progressive image is not really worth it. It still takes the same amount of time to download the image and the file image does become larger.
A javascript preloader wont be much help on such a large file.
A javascript loading bar script can be set to load in a pop-window so that it does not affect the speed of the original download as much.

My suggestion is that you thumbnail it. Have it load a slightly larger version of the image you want to display. This will allow users to see the picture better. If they decide they want the image, zip the original using winzip or something. Then add a download link to the zip file.

This way people dont have to wait for the full image to load and they can preview it before they download.

[Beev]

I personally dont like background images. Id rather use a plain colour beckground. Or, if I have to use an image, I use a small image, say 80x80 then let the browser tile it.

That loads alot faster.

[Zero Angel]

If you're using a photo type image as a background, consider lightening (or darkening) it so that its barely noticable from the background, then apply a blur and save as a .jpg with about 30% quality. Reducing saturation and contrast also cuts filesize, and some of these operations can be done with no noticable affect on image quality.

If you're using an image with just over 256 colors, try applying a posterize filter on it to reduce the colors and prevent dithering (dithering increases filesize), then save as a .gif.

If you're using a simple (black and white) type logo, then use a 'threshold' filter to convert the image to 2 colors, recolor so that its subtle with the intended background and then save as a 2 color gif (with a transparent background). Very difficult to do, but it leads to extremely small filesizes. The watermark on this (http://www.kahkewistahaw.com/interact.cgi) page is only 4.7 k despite its large physical size.

[Zero Angel]

Keep in mind that regardless of how well an image is compressed, it will load into memory as bitmap. So...images that are physically large (such as full sized webpage backgrounds) will be extremely resource intensive and almost unusable for users with older PCs. As an exercise, try saving your intended background as a bitmap file, then take note of the size. Thats about how much system and/or video ram that that particular file is going to use.

That isn't the only problem, scrolling is also system intensive *especially* where large graphics are involved. Scrolling large background images with an older PC is a very choppy experience, because the graphic has to redraw with each frame and data has to be passed in and out of virtual memory.

Newer machines can handle large graphic backgrounds well enough, so make sure that your target audience has machines that can keep up with the resource requirements of your webpage.

[MikeParent]

In case you missed it - using a 1024 X 768 X 16M image for a web page background is a seriously bad idea. :-)

And the link provided asked for a password, can you provide a working example of what you are trying to do?