try THIS
not only does it do jpgs, but gifs and png's as well.
it adds captions for those who want to add a footnote to their pics.
it has come to my attention at PFL, that the PNG photo image is superior in some ways to a JPG when posting images for website purposes (and this qualifies i think).
PNG's have excellent compression, and better quality in some cases than JPG's do.
best of all PSP can convert them.
hope this helps.
[addsig]
| ? posted by Leperous |
| Well I'd use it if it didn't stick a XAT logo in the corner :/ |
It does?
where?
ORIGINAL
EDITED FIRST ROUND
EDITED SECOND TIME
I do NOT want to get caught promoting defective programs, here or at PFL, so if there is something that needs addressed lep, show me.
(yes i know the first pic was large, it was only posted for comparative purposes, i will remove it if its very important i do so)
[addsig]| ? posted by Leperous |
| Hmm, well before it put some small text saying 'xat.com' in the corner of my images- but it was the shareware version! |
arrg, you could be correct, i was stupid and downloaded the newer version this morning, not realizing i had an older one already.
i am unsure that if i click on the icon, if it is accessing the newer, or older program, even though i do in fact have both icons.
you could be correct 
lemme see if i can confirm my versions.
[addsig]Being the great guy I am, I just imprt images into Flash and then add text/effects as I please. Then export. Done.
[addsig]
Sadly Lep, you are correct.
the good news is, the caption is tiny, and can be cropped with PSP, but if you can do that then you have PSP and don't need this program... or do you? can someone verify that xat optimise's an image better than PSP?
[addsig]I dunno, you can use pretty much any image editing program (Paint?!) to convert your image to jpg and resize it to 640x480. That alone should get the filesize within reason.
I am loaning filespace to some Action UT2k3 mappers, I need to explain to them that you need to use JPGs not GIFs ffs, 1-2mb screenshots are ridiculous 
| ? posted by Jinx |
|
I dunno, you can use pretty much any image editing program (Paint?!) to convert your image to jpg and resize it to 640x480. That alone should get the filesize within reason. |
if, as you mention its so easy, why do so many fail?
| ? posted by Jinx |
|
I am loaning filespace to some Action UT2k3 mappers, I need to explain to them that you need to use JPGs not GIFs ffs, 1-2mb screenshots are ridiculous |
points up to previous quote.
my condolences to your misery :/
[addsig]i dont know what the image sizes are in Xat, but in PSP, an 800x600 jpg lands at around 45-55 kb for me, but then again, im special...
Doc B...
| ? posted by Dr Brasso |
|
iim special... Doc B... |
yeah, i noticed the forehead too, but being the respectable individual i am, i didn't mention it till you did.. it is rather large.
and xat will produce a 25k to 80k image at 800x600
[addsig]ouch....welcome back, you old fart...
Doc Brass...
neat avatar, Brasso
I usually use 640x480, then run it once through the 'sharpen' filter in Photoshop and save at about 6-8 quality. I kinda like that, because it keeps the screenshot smaller but the sharpen helps retain detail and makes it look crisp. That's usually around 80-100k I think, though I am usually willing to sacrifice some filesize for quality if I'm showing something off.
my opinion is, whatever it takes to get a file size down to under 100k is mighty fine.
with that said, people usually don't even bother to experiment or even attempt a new program because... they either feel their expensive program already does it all, or the new one isn't expensive enough to bother with.
i have found that, PSP8 and PS7 are extremely similar and do almost the same thing in producing a smallish file size, but i have also found that xat produces a still smaller file size with high levels of quality, when you combine its magi-compression with the jpg optimizer, both found in the jpg optimizer program.. i have found little advantage to the image optimizer EXCEPT its ability to do more than jpg conversions and its text addition ability.
end results is what matters guys, i can have an 800x600 high quality image at extremely small files, while you are stuck with your 640x480 ones at the same file sizes as mine.
the choice seems easy, but.....
bottom line, i will notice images over 100k, and will point them out anytime i feel they are unwarranted, if you want to fight about it then, so be it, but I'd rather have harmony now about it.
be good
[addsig]I think it depends on what you are doing images for, too. if I am showing a few pics of a map to show it off, I'll make sure they are really good quality even if the filesizes are slightly higher. If I am using a bunch of pics to show someone a bug in a map etc., I will use smaller images (320x240 even) and lower quality.
Anyway, as long as people aren't posting anything ridiculously huge, or too many at once, I don't think it's that big a deal...
| ? posted by Jinx |
|
Anyway, as long as people aren't posting anything ridiculously huge, or too many at once, I don't think it's that big a deal... |
this about sums it all up 
post summary....
im hoping Leps got unlimited webspace, cause im thinkin\' hes got one on the line here... 
his call on quality vs quality vs quantity....bottom line.
Doc B...
