Testing it out. Not a fan of it. It works, but only because I’m previewing it in Chrome. However, it’s slow to load maybe because it’s doing some additional Javascripting to make it work. So unless there is native support, I wouldn’t recommend using WEBP images just yet.
Google seems to have removed a very useful search option from their search engine. Previously, users were able to search images by size, particularly those “larger than” a certain megapixel size. I found a workaround:
Add the following query to the end of your Google Image Search’s very long url
&tbs=isz:lt,islt:10mp
And you can replace the 10mp with the following size steps: 2mp, 4mp, 6mp, 8mp, 10mp, 15mp, 20mp, 40mp, 70mp.
I hope Google returns these feature as it was quite useful.
JPEG is king. For now. But Google’s got their WebP image format. Microsoft’s got their JPEG-XR. BUT, as images get more high-rez, and users become less patient with downloading more content at high speeds (although higher bandwidth is becoming more household and hopefully more affordable), what needs to be done with the Internet “image” in order to make it a little more efficient? (more…)
By Chongchen Saelee
www.eastfist.com
Originally published Nov. 12, 2009
While working on my own website, I was doing research on increasing the speed of webpage downloads and naturally the topic of image optimization came into play. Like most graphic designers who have easy access to Photoshop, I’ve found it sufficient to use it’s "Save For Web" feature to optimize images for the Internet. However, after reading some claims by more reputable web designers (I assume they are) that two programs could greatly reduce the filesizes of images while retaining lossless quality, I had to see it for myself. Here are the results:
