Something of interest to some people perhaps.
For doing web graphics, its 2011…the time of broadband connections, and pretty much everywhere unless you live in the stix somewhere.
There really isn’t any reason to overly compress Jpg images, or to even compress them at all, unless you have a zillion of them all over your pages in high resolution. Well apparently when you submit poster art to IMDB, they use JPG compression settings of “4” or Low Quality. Seeing that you have to pay 35$ to them just to display a silly small to mid sized Jpg on a simple Html site, you would think you would get a little better service than them arbitrarily knocking your quality down to shit levels.
Normally when I display images for the web I use the target resolution, meaning the size on the screen is the size of the image document. I do this becuase having a large image on a page when you only need to display it at a much lower scale means your just using that much over head thats not needed unless of course you want people to be able to click on the photo and have it scale up in a separate explorer window.
I did this for the Cornbread / Bibble image last month of instance…but I dont do that too often.
The second reason you use 1 x 1 is that when you scale an image it creates distortions when looking at it scaled down which I don’t like the look of. So of course when submitting an image to IMDB, I think the same way. Send them the target size that you think you want it displayed at to avoid scaling issues.
Well in the case of IMDB, you actually want to send as big an image possible. I never use JPG compression because I can see the artifacting it creates even on its higher quality settings which I don’t like…so I never looked into the effects of compression on various sized images to see what it would do. Well it appears the larger the image, the less the compression settings will chew up your image….so long story short, if you send an image to IMDB to be used for your poster on project pages, you should send the largest size possible so when they use their crappy Jpg “4” low quality setting, it wont totally ass-rape your poster image.
It doesnt seem to do this as bad with the film screen shots they charge 10$ a pop for…just the main poster images.