can't see problem yet

[pduggan]

I use XX for most of my optimising because I find (unlike some) I can usually make my JPEGs smaller and better-looking that way and I appreciate the selection of GIF and PNG export controls.

I've just tried re-exporting your GIF from XX and come up with the following observations:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>It only needs 5 colours to export at 15249 bytes using the 256 colour optimised palette.<LI>You can reduce that to 13972 bytes with the same 5 colours in the 16 colour optimised palette.<LI>You can get that down to 13907 bytes using the WebSnap optimised palette. It appears to be one of the anti-aliasing colours (and not one of the two main colours) that's being changed here.<LI>Swapping the 16 colour WebSnap optimised GIF for the same in PNG knocks that down to 12718 bytes.<LI>Further manual reductions in the number of colours don't appear to bring any improvements in this case.[/list]IMHO, you won't do much better than that, but I'd be delighted for someone to prove me wrong!

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

[dalel]

I use a freeware utility that cleans jpegs of their extraneous code, often resulting in files sizes 2-3k smaller. If your graphic is 10k, you can often reduce it to 7-8k, a substantial savings if you have a lot of small graphics.

Rainbow Software


Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

[jon spain]

to the help received, which i do appreciate, particularly a rare second chance. The image was just too large in pixels so I'm going to cut them all down which means more pages, implying more banners to reduce afterwards. But I have certainly learned from this, thanx for that too

Jon