There are two sets of three images. Which one looks best?
First one is x1.9 size with medium compression (quality 30)
Second one is x2 size with medium compression (quality 30)
Third one is x1 size with high compression (quality 80)
I don’t have a retina laptop but I’ve just purchased a nexus 7 (couldn’t justify an ipad) which has a absolutely stunning screen, the match of any retina screened mac. so…
Nothing between top two and third definitely the worst. Not sure your giving us much of a challenge
2nd image is (ever so) slightly better than the 1st.
3rd definitely the worst. in both cases - although it’s really on the text where it’s noticeable in the windmill pics
Brilliant. Thanks for that, proves that doubling the dimensions of images and compressing the hell out of them does look better than high quality actual size images.
While those particular 1.9x images look ok, remember that they are very isolated cases. The overall quality of the image greatly depends on the content of the image itself – the sharper the image, the more noticeable the difference will be. Even between 1.9x and 2x.
You’re always going to be better off making your web images double the dimensions of the image container – assuming the original is large enough to do so – and the cost of doing so is mostly insignificant.
I hadn’t noticed the turbine images, have you just added them. On the Nexus (millions sold) the bottom image is much better with less banding in the sky.
What I’m getting at is what are the majority of people viewing on ?
I also concur with Joe. As I intimated on another post a little extra sharpening can also help.Subject matter has a big factor on file size and you have to frequently compromise on quality levels, or you can end up with very large files for people to download.
