Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

making a single .jpg from a web-page that is over one screen long

<< < (3/6) > >>

Steven Avery:
Thanks!

I had noticed with regular pics, that if I took two pictures of the same screen region
with WinSnap .. that the .PNG pic would not go into vBulletin as large as the . JPG
So I made sure the setting is .JPG.  Dunno why it works that way.

==============

Awesome Screenshot (ran better in Chrome) did fine in making the image, .PNG, but again, it would not
go into vBulletin as large as I would like.  Maybe there is a fix for that.

Screenshot Captor seems to want me to do some stitching, and was showing me part of my
screen above and below the actual browser window (I think) I would be happy to try again
later but for now it is not simple enough.

Pearl Crescent Page Save is Firefox 57 (Quantum) and I use lower Firefoxes like 52.
In a pinch I could run both versions.

My SnagIt 7 license is pretty low for Windows 10, not really compatible.

Screengrab and ScreenshotGuru - maybe

Conceptually, it may well be that extensions do better, because they are thinking website window.

Of course, there are likely a couple dozen others.

Steven

panzer:
Use FastStone Capture last free version and click on Capture scrolling window.

ConstanceJill:
png is larger in many cases.-wraith808 (June 12, 2018, 09:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
It heavily depends on the type of picture you have. JPEG is mostly better for photos while PNG is better for pictures with much higher contrast, such as most webpages that do not include photos as their main contents.

I just tested with this thread's page as it was displayed on my computer before I posted, and got a 449 KB .PNG file on one side, and a 1.2 MB .jpg file on the other side.
Trying to save to JPEG that same picture (starting from the lighter, lossless version) with enough compression so that it goes below 450 KB (using IrfanView, either with the RIOT plug-in and specifying a size, or without the RIOT plug-in but by trying various possible values for the quality slider) produced pictures with lots of artefacts around the text, which is really ugly.

Also, the PNG file I obtained can be quickly optimized to become even smaller, still without quality loss, with programs such as PngOptimizer : I got it down to 372 KB.

Pearl Crescent Page Save is Firefox 57 (Quantum) and I use lower Firefoxes like 52.-Steven Avery (June 13, 2018, 05:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
Only the version called Page Saver WE (for WebExtensions) requires 57+, while this one is for earlier versions.

wraith808:
It heavily depends on the type of picture you have.
-ConstanceJill (June 13, 2018, 04:39 PM)
--- End quote ---

That was my only point.  It does depend.  But in your original post you said "why JPG" as if it had no place

* wraith808 shrugs

ConstanceJill:
I just "instinctively" thought PNG was very likely to be better for webpages because from my own (admittedly subjective) experience, I found that most web pages produce both lighter and better quality pictures being saved as PNG, unless the contents of the page includes a significant portion made of pictures (especially if those are already in JPEG), and thus it seemed only natural to question the choice of JPG.

For now we only know that OP encounters some kind of issue when posting PNG pictures to forums working with vBulletin, which seems to be the only reason —although I guess it may be a fair enough one, if the issue is too bothersome and can't be fixed— why he favors JPG.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page