|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 09/26/01 11:16
Steve Sundberg wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:40:53 -0500, kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Sundberg wrote:
>>
>>>And why use Flash for a simple slide show?
>>>As an alternative, a properly optimized GIF animation
>>>would get the same job done for fewer bytes.
>>
>>I doubt it. Gif is not an appropriate format for photos. An animated gif
>>would probably be many times larger than a properly compressed Flash
>>movie, at least for photographic content.
>>
>>Now, if they were line drawings instead, it would be another matter.
>
>
> Yes, you're correct -- although I will sometimes convert JPGs to GIF
> in order to achieve the dithered effect. The solution to the large SWF
> file size has to involve using properly optimized JPG or PNG images.
> Given the few images used in this particular Flash file, there
> shouldn't be any need for the SWF to be larger than 50k-75k.
>
The SWF file is only 9kb in size. The images are external to the SWF
file, and are loaded with help from an (also external) XML file that
acts as a control to ID the images.
The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash could
properly digest PNG. :-(
...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|