Scaling image in flash website: pixel dimensions vs jpg compression

[The View]

Hi,

I'm setting up my images for my new website.

It's going to have scaling, so the images can get fill even a 27" screen.

I experimented to keep file sizes smaller, but show good quality.


It's a fight between pixel dimensions and jpeg compression settings.

So far I found out that an image that larger and has a higher compression setting looks still better than a smaller image with lower setting.


On such an esthetic theme you can't ask too pointed a question.

Just tell us: what is your experience with the fight between large image pixel dimensions and the need to cut down image size for web display?

What was your best method?

[john beardsworth]

Best method? Generating them dynamically from a content management system? So you upload high res JPEG to the server and it generates JPEGs at the sizes required by the visitor, adding watermarks and sharpening on the fly.

You use SlideShowPro's Director this way. It can be the back end for a SWF and / or PHP/HTML pages - important as you've also got to consider Flash-crippled devices like the iPad.

John

[hjulenissen]

Am I right that you are asking:
"If my image is going to be viewed on a 27" monitor and I am limited to 600kB filesize, what combination of resolution and jpeg quality should I choose?"

The answer is content-dependent.

-h