Picture Splitter (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> General Web Development



Message

_gail -> Picture Splitter (3/6/2003 10:12:56)


Happened upon FrontFX Picture Splitter at Microsoft' s site. The addin works within the FP program and is a free download.

http://www.xzmedia.com/frontfx/products.asp (located midway down the page)

There' s a bunch of other FrontPage add-ins, some for free.

http://www.xzmedia.com/frontfx/downloads1.asp


gail



swoosh -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/6/2003 10:56:56)

Sweet!! Thanks Gail [:)]



jbrandt04330 -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/12/2003 10:58:28)

Do I read this correctly - this plug in is for FP 2000 only? Any one try it with FP 2002?

jeb



swoosh -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/12/2003 11:47:35)

Strange as it may be. I believe it' s only compatible with 2000. Look here:

http://www.microsoft.com/frontpage/downloads/addin/searchdetail.asp?a=133



_gail -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/12/2003 13:18:58)

It installed in my version of FP 2002.

The little bugger really does a nice job at slicing, the only thing I wonder is what purpose does it serve if it doesn' t optimize, etc. Please let me know if I' m missing something.

gail



swoosh -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/12/2003 13:25:24)

quote:

It installed in my version of FP 2002


Thanks for the heads up Gail



Radio Guy -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/19/2003 19:44:51)

This was a great idea, but I' m having a problem with it. In splitting my graphic it is constantly leaving a piece out. Anybody else have this problem?



Radio Guy -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/25/2003 16:58:05)

Gee, I answered my own question. And all I had to do was look at the directions. I' m beginning to feel like the male equivalent of (oops, I started to say " dumb blonde" and then realized that would sound chauvinistic) an intelligence-challenged follically-light female.



Seventh -> RE: Picture Splitter (3/26/2003 0:31:09)

quote:

intelligence-challenged follically-light female.


[:D]



gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/3/2003 16:24:08)

Hi Gail,

I must be missing something too. Must be that I am an intelligence-challenged follically-deficient male. I did download the picture splitter and it seemed to work well for me. What do you mean by " what purpose does it serve if it doesn' t optimize" ? That word " optomize" is a bit over my head. What do you want it to do that it does not do?



gorilla -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/6/2003 12:27:32)

A very good stand alone for those occasions when you' re not using something that' s specific to frontpage is splitz. I' ve used quite a lot when working in a windows environment. It is freeware and you can get it here:

http://www.b-zone.de/software/splitz.htm

by the way the rest of his gratis software is worth a look also.



_gail -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/6/2003 13:02:12)

quote:

What do you mean by " what purpose does it serve if it doesn' t optimize" ? That word " optomize" is a bit over my head. What do you want it to do that it does not do?


Optimization of images allows them to be compressed so they load faster into a web page. Slicing an image allows several additional options. For example, an image can be sliced in programs such as Photoshop and ImageReady and each section can be saved at different compression levels; saved in a different file format (jpg or gif); placed in different tables for design and layout; a section of an image can be animated; etc.

Picture Splitter slices images but, as far as I can tell, doesn' t allow other tweaking of sections.

gail

btw, find time to read and study the following thread. imho, it is the best, most complete and helpful discussion of many of these techniques.

http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/tm.asp?m=102318&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1



gorilla -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/6/2003 13:30:19)


quote:

ORIGINAL: _gail


Optimization of images allows them to be compressed so they load faster into a web page. Slicing an image allows several additional options. For example, an image can be sliced in programs such as Photoshop and ImageReady and each section can be saved at different compression levels; saved in a different file format (jpg or gif); placed in different tables for design and layout; a section of an image can be animated; etc.

Picture Splitter slices images but, as far as I can tell, doesn' t allow other tweaking of sections.

gail

btw, find time to read and study the following thread. imho, it is the best, most complete and helpful discussion of many of these techniques.

http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/tm.asp?m=102318&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1



Oops I forgot to mention that splitz does do compression.

Here' s the blurb from the site:

Splitz! allows you to split any image into rectangular parts and export the resulting
images along with the HTML table that puts them back together. This allows webmaster
to create for creating mouseover effects and offers an alternative to imagemaps. It
supports many images formats and includes smart JPEG compression as well as basic
color balancing filters.

Latest Version: 1.43 (minor bugfixes, added PNG export)





gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/7/2003 18:53:23)

Hi Gail,

Thanks for your comments. I went to all of the threads and read everything but most of it was way over my head. I am 85 years old so my learning curve is much greater than it was 30 years back [;)]but even so, it made for very interesting reading. From what I gather about slicing and compression, the main advantage is a faster loading page. I experimented with an image that was 575x600 and the load time at 42666bps was about 13 seconds and the same image split into 4 slices using the FrontFX Picture Splitter and converted to jpg loaded in 7 seconds. I would probably never use and image that large on any of my pages so my main question about all of this is whether or not the load time justifies all the effort of slicing and compression? It is my opinion that the late computers are getting so fast that all of this becomes somewhat moot.

I also downloaded the slicer suggested by Gorilla and will mess around with that when I get a chance. I think the effect of the image slices loading one after the other is of greater concern and gives the user a sense of something happening as opposed to nothing happening. Just my 2 cents on all of this.





_gail -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/7/2003 19:07:02)

quote:

my main question about all of this is whether or not the load time justifies all the effort of slicing and compression? It is my opinion that the late computers are getting so fast that all of this becomes somewhat moot.


If you don' t use large images, you may not need to slice. However, compression really does matter!

While newer computers are indeed faster, their speed has only a marginal effect on the loading time of web pages and images. Even people with fast processors may use a dial-up connection, your know, S-L-O-W phone lines. While more and more people are switching to Broadband connections, I believe the majority is still on dial-ups so compress and optimize your images.

gail




john40004 -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/8/2003 13:16:25)

quote:

It is my opinion that the late computers are getting so fast that all of this becomes somewhat moot.


Hi gskywalkers,
Gail makes an extremely important point which many folks forget when designing web sites.

My newest home computer is only fifteen months old and was close to the " top of the line" since I connect to business networks through it. Living in a rural area, I don' t have access to DSL or cable connections. My connection is through a 56K dial-up modem. My normal connection speed however, (that shown by the computer) normally runs at, and has never exceeded, 28.8 kilobytes per second since I' m going through so many telephone switches to reach my ISP. This is through a separate data line installed just for the computer, connection through our main telephone line is even slower.

By splitting images, compressing their size or having text load prior to images, I at least have something to look at while a page loads.




gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/8/2003 16:02:02)

Hi John........I agree with everything you say as I am in a rural area myself and have to live with a 56k dial up modem but we need to go back only to 1997 when I was using Windows 95 and lucky enough to occasionally be able to achieve 14,400 on a 28,000k dial up modem. Even after I upgraded to a 56K modem, my connection speeds were usually 19,600 and I was told by my ISP that this is normal for my area. Well, after shopping through several ISP' s, my connection speeds are now always over 40,000 and thus my statement that " that the late computers are getting so fast that all of this becomes somewhat moot."




gorilla -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/8/2003 17:20:08)

I sure you meant 85 years young [:)].

I should have mentioned that this company

http://www.tafweb.co.uk/

Have some very good free software. One of them webspeed is excellent at helping you workout how long a page or images will take to load at various modem speeds. MUCH more accurate than the built in guesstimate by front page.

Hopefully you this will help further. Enjoy the learning curve you picked the right place for help.

Thor
Spokesgorilla :-)



gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/8/2003 19:17:57)

Thanks Gorilla.......I will have to give this a try. I see that he is no longer offereing any assistance but the download worked fine.



john40004 -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/8/2003 19:51:18)

quote:

Well, after shopping through several ISP' s, my connection speeds are now always over 40,000 and thus my statement that " that the late computers are getting so fast that all of this becomes somewhat moot."


Hi gskywalkers,
No, I still have to disagree. Newer computers are faster as to " processing" speed, but are still limited as to connection speed to the Internet dependent on available telephone links to the ISP. Regardless of the ISP I may use, I still have to travel through the same switches to reach the main telephone switch/hub where the ISP' s are located. My local telephone exchange requires that I travel this telephone backbone to reach an ISP. The only alternative I currently have is a satellite connection.

Years ago (early 1980' s [:(]) I used to limit my Computer Operators and System Analysts to lunch time and overnight compiles due to the impact on user response time. The " processing" portion caused that. Today, my personal computer, several times larger in processing capacity than my prior room of impressive, climate controlled hardware, still is limited by the speed I can download/upload what I process to the company computer.



gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/9/2003 1:14:04)

Hi John......I think you have a phone company problem. My connection speeds were down where yours are now until the phone company put in underground fiber optic cables. Before that they were running on rusty barbed wire tied together with bailing wire.[:j]



_gail -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/9/2003 8:28:55)

quote:

I think you have a phone company problem.


Here' s my two cents.

No, I am not of the opinion that John has a phone company problem per se. I think what he experiences is the rule rather than the exception. In fact both he and I recently tested the loading time of a site for another Outfronter and we both got the same results.

I go to people' s homes and teach computing. I' ve worked with LOTS of dial-ups on old as well as new computers. No matter what the age of the computer, the phone line connections are invariably slow though some are marginally better than others.

My daughter in other state has a MUCH older computer than I but a faster dial-up connection, though still slow. My sister, in yet another state, has a computer much newer and faster than mine. Her dial-up is so slow that I nearly cry when using it.[:(]

As an aside, I have both broadband and a dial-up connections. The dial-up is slow, slow, slow and I' m using the exact same one-and-a-half year old computer with broadband as I am with my 56k modem.

Bottom line when creating a website you want others to visit, you must acknowledge that the majority of users currently use dial-up connections. Optimizing images so they load quickly into a browser is very important if you want visitors to stick around.

I am much pleased when John checks one of my websites in a site review and tells me pages load well. [:)] If I don' t get his " okay," it' s back to the drawing board for me![:' (]

gail



gskywalkers -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/9/2003 21:04:01)

Hi Gail.....I am in no way disputing the need for pages to load fast. I understand that most of the internet users are on dial up modems and that load time is critical if you want people to hang around. [;)]

As I write this, I am currently connected at 45,000bps on a 56k dial up modem. John says that there is no way that he is able to achieve anywhere near this connection speed on his computer using a dial up modem. So, if his computer is fast and his ISP is fast and he can only connect at 28.800, that only leaves the telephone company and all those switches he talks about to get to the ISP.

I looked at a survey covering the connection speeds of about 20 varied 56k modems and the test results sent in by the users all indicated connection speeds of 40 to 52,000. I have found this range to be very satisfactory even when downloading images as large as 768x1024 that I use for wallpaper. Not the speed of light of course but not 28.8 or lower either.

http://www.56k.com/survey/howfast/results.shtml

I am still anxious to try this slicing process but I can' t afford to buy the newer version of Photoshop or the others to do this. I am currently using Paintshop Pro 7 which allows me to first compress the image and save in a jpeg format. This leaves me with using this little utility Front FX. It seems to do a nice job of slicing the image so my question: Is this method basically what you are describing as " optomizing" ? From what I can see, it cuts down the overall size of the image by about 50% while still maintaing clarity.

Thanks Gail and John.......I didn' t mean to get so lengthy[:j]



john40004 -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/9/2003 21:33:31)

Hi gskywalkers,
No need at all to apologize. Like you, I too am here to learn. I' ll look at your link - thanks![:D] I get tired of wiping cobwebs off my screen during loading. [:p]
John



_gail -> RE: Picture Splitter (4/10/2003 19:24:46)

quote:

It seems to do a nice job of slicing the image so my question: Is this method basically what you are describing as " optomizing" ? From what I can see, it cuts down the overall size of the image by about 50% while still maintaing clarity.

Thanks Gail and John.......I didn' t mean to get so lengthy


Sounds to me like you got the concept perfectly, gskywalkers!

You won' t find me casting any stones about getting " lengthy." Of course, I' ve never written a lengthy post in my Outfront life. [:j][:D][:p][;)]

gail



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.109375