Backgrounds

I've got screenshots from both Half Life 2 and WoW that can be used as backgrounds. They are BMPs so the quality is good but they take a little longer to view than a Jpeg. I've got several pictures and I'll be adding on so I think you should be able to find something you like in there. They are very atmospheric too.

http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/spartan_34_themapper/lst?.dir=/My+Documents/screenshot+backgrounds&.view=l

Convert them to PNGs if you can. The format is lossless, so you retain
the quality, plus they take up about 30% the size of a bitmap.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting fraggard</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Convert them to PNGs if you can. The format is lossless, so you retain the quality, plus they take up about 30% the size of a bitmap.
</DIV></DIV>

Ok I'll try that.
What about changing them to GIFs?

GIF's aren't suited to pictures with a lot of variety in colour (eg.
screenshots, photos), but are best for things like vector graphics or
website images that tend to have larger blocks of consistant colour.
You would be best making them high quality JPEG's, as even without
losing much quality you will save a signficant amount in file size. Or
try PNG's as frag said, as I know nothing about them.

PNGs are usually quite awful for large complicated images- JPGs are still the daddy at those. Only use I've found for PNGs so far is website logos with text in :/

PNGs are usually quite awful for large complicated images- JPGs
are still the daddy at those. Only use I've found for PNGs so far is
website logos with text in :/

He seems to want lossless compression, which JPEG just cannot give. It
wasn't designed to be lossless. PNG is the only other decent, widely
supported, lossless format I know of.

Ah but if he wants only noticeable lossless (as in he doesnt need it
perfect, just perfect as is noticeable by the human eye) then a high
quality jpeg will still do the trick.

PNG's are really good for alpha transparency (we're talking crazy
32-bit transparency here). Too bad IE doesn't support it, so it's
rarely used (if ever). :sad:

In photoshop, there are varying qualities that one can save JPG in. the 12 quality looks JUST like a BMP. the 1 quality looks like a truckstop toilet.

My first post from Fedora linux , Pictures coming soon ^_^. I figured i should try it as a website maker = p it turns out.. thats really what its good for is hosting. So i shall put up pics soon :wink: .

I'll try a high quality jpeg. The pictures aren't hugely complicated but do have a large variety of colors. If I do make it a higher quality jpeg there shouldn't be any noticable difference.

If you turn down all the optimizations in the XAT program, you can make a jpg look even better with it. it has some sort of a color adding utility in it.

might be worth a looksee.

XAT is not just a compression utility, its just the best one.