Preserved Topic: 4 bit color option (Page 1 of 1)

I have reduced the number of colors to 16 for the image on my non-profit community project's homepage because I am told that it will load faster. I have also inserted one of Dr. Ozone's java scripts. Does it matter, as far as loading time is concerned, whether the script is limited to the same 16 colors or not? (I use Corel, alas, and I'm not sure that my having reduced the number of colors was ever taken into account when publishing the page. If anyone is able to comment on this, also, I would be very grateful.) Thank you very much for the favor of any replies. <P>------------------
Mary Claire

I guess only Doc is the only one that can answer that ? with authority but I don't see why it would.<P>Only thing is, so far as the 4bit colors go is it may load slightly faster if the image is especially large, or there are alot of them, however, most folks go the route of higher resolution. It looks better, and is more appealing.<P>One way some of gremmies can help is if you'd include a URL of the page you're working on if it's uploaded....

I agree with what 2winspapa said. Fewer colors will help it to load faster, but unless the image is really big, you probably won't notice a big difference. It may be worth going with more colors.<P>As for the JavaScript script, I don't think it matters how many colors you use, since the script doesn't actually interact with the colors themselves.

Thank you for your replies. The address is is: www.corecomm.net/~scrapmet. Unfortunately, the script only appears correctly in Internet Explorer (another problem!!!). It looks very strange, indeed, in Netscape.

Hey, the 4 bit color options looks pretty cool there! The code doesn't care what bit depth the images are, if the images are smaller in size, loading time is reduced, if not, then not. You may want to try saving the images at higher depth, and then looking at their propeties, are they really smaller, smaller enough to make the jaggu edges worth it? This bit is always a judgement call, ideally, you want as much quality as possible, and the smallest images possible. You can never have both, so you pick a spot in the middle you can live with. Typically, I'll opt for better quality, and then make a point of saving GIFs using the "export as" function in Photoshop, it makes smaller gifs than the "save as" option. Of course, JPEGs are almost always smaller than GIFs, I usually save GIF for images that have flat panels of color, or when I just need transparency. Watch when you drop to indexed color mode, dithering will produce smoother gradients, but your flat panel of color might not be just one color anymore, and now your image can get really big in terms of bandwidth!
<P>------------------
----- Doctor Thaddeus Ozone --------- "Specialization is for insects"---
  --- OZONE pages .................................. http://www.ozones.com/
    - Hands-On Tutorials ............ http://www.ozones.com/handson/

HAH! Found the post again Mary! Good answer Doc.

Have obtained MORE books to understand the obscure (to me) terminology you all use. I now know using a gif was not very smart. It was something reccommended in OTHER books. I certainly understand what "jagged edges" mean and it is a very kind understatement when referring to my web effort. Looking at it makes me cringe: not only jagged edges but color clashing swirling balls that won't even appear on Netscape except as sick rectangular ghosts and to top it all off: music that sometimes plays and sometimes doesn't. I think I have bitten off more than I can chew. What do they say? NEVER VOLUNTEER!