Except png is 7x the file size of jpeg is there really a 7x increase in quality especially considering this page takes over 5 minutes to loadPNG is awesome, never going back to compressed JPEG
399kb as opposed to the original 2.86mb
Except png is 7x the file size of jpeg is there really a 7x increase in quality especially considering this page takes over 5 minutes to loadPNG is awesome, never going back to compressed JPEG
Previous page is 260 MB of images!399kb as opposed to the original 2.86mb
Lol should maybe rename thread to no 56K and no data plan. HahaPrevious page is 260 MB of images!
They still get loaded AFAIK.I think it is not a problem but post image under spoiler tag with a message saying warning big png files.
They still get loaded AFAIK.
In addition, Firefox viewing this page requires 250 MBs. Viewing the previous page requires an additional 1.4 GBs RAM.
Personally I don't see the sense in using a flat, linear data structure for exhibiting these images. There are photo browsing websites out there which don't require the previous 100 images to be loaded in order to see the latest one. This thread is the wrong tool for the job (although we're free to not visit it as I normally don't for just these reasons!).