Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'jpg'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to ProcessWire
    • News & Announcements
    • Showcase
    • Wishlist & Roadmap
  • Community Support
    • Getting Started
    • Tutorials
    • FAQs
    • General Support
    • API & Templates
    • Modules/Plugins
    • Themes and Profiles
    • Multi-Language Support
    • Security
    • Jobs
  • Off Topic
    • Pub
    • Dev Talk

Product Groups

  • Form Builder
  • ProFields
  • ProCache
  • ProMailer
  • Login Register Pro
  • ProDrafts
  • ListerPro
  • ProDevTools
  • Likes
  • Custom Development

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. Hi guys, I’ve recently set up 2 PW installations for using WebP images (following this explanations, strategy 3). Both servers run on identical system configurations and PW versions (3.0.184). While integrating the WebP functionality was no problem at all, I’m massively confused by the results: one server works as expected, the other one does the sheer opposite. Server 1 (the good one): Images total: 326 WebP bigger than JPG: 41 (on average more than 40 %) WebP smaller than JPG: 285 (on average 30–40 %) Server 2 (the bad one): Images total: 862 WebP bigger than JPG: 773 (on average 30–40 %) WebP smaller than JPG: 89 (on average less than 10 %) As far as I know, the quality of the source JPG has an impact on the WebP: highly compressed JPGs may lead to hardly smaller or even bigger WebPs, while the savings with high quality JPGs tend to be more spectacular. Server 1 seems to confirm this assumption (the JPGs with bigger WebPs here are highly compressed 3rd party images) while server 2 ist acting completely strange. The source JPG’s size is around 1.200 x 800 pixel with a moderate compression rate and file sizes ranging between 100 and 500 kB with an average of 250 kB. The JPG quality on server 1 is about the same (regardless the 41 lousy ones), the only difference is their smaller size of 900 x 600 px with an average file size of 150 kB. So I’d consider the WebP use on server 1 as clearly progressive, while server 2 essentially limits itself to fill up the webspace with bigger images that will never appear on a display. Is there any influence on the WebP conversion I might have missed?
  2. Hi, what I'm doing is this: <picture> <source srcset="<?php echo $page->section_three->main_img->first()->size(396,710)->webp->url; ?>" type="image/webp"> <img class="p_absoulte pp_block" src="<?php echo $page->section_three->main_img->first()->size(396,710)->url; ?>" alt=""> </picture> and for some reason it sometimes becomes this: <picture> <source srcset="/site/assets/files/1057/sektion3_bild-1.396x710.png" type="image/webp"> <img class="p_absoulte pp_block" src="/site/assets/files/1057/sektion3_bild-1.396x710.png" alt=""> </picture> It seems to be related to ->size(). When I don't use ->size() the webp Url is correct. I'm using the image-field inside a Fieldset(Page). Could that be a problem too? I just increased the output size by 2px and voila the webp url comes up. I deleted all variations (webp variation is present in correct size) changed it back to the original size and again: a png url. I also tried to rename the image and load it up agian. ...same behavoir. Thanks in advance guys
  3. Is there a way to make JPGs progressive by default via the API? I've added the following to my site/config.php file but user-uploaded images are often displayed as non progressive. $config->imageSizerOptions = array( 'upscaling' => true, // upscale if necessary to reach target size? 'cropping' => true, // crop if necessary to reach target size? 'autoRotation' => true, // automatically correct orientation? 'interlace' => true, // use interlaced JPEGs by default? (recommended) 'sharpening' => 'soft', // sharpening: none | soft | medium | strong 'quality' => 95, // quality: 1-100 where higher is better but bigger 'hidpiQuality' => 60, // Same as above quality setting, but specific to hidpi images 'defaultGamma' => 0.5, // defaultGamma: 0.5 to 4.0 or -1 to disable gamma correction (default=2.0) ); Thanks
  4. Hi all, this article on CSS-Tricks: Transparent JPG (With SVG) might be of interest for some of you. Kind regards ottogal
×
×
  • Create New...