Broadband and dial-up

[daveh]

A question by Doug (zook) and an anwser by Wayne just set me wondering about broadband and dial-up. Much of the UK is covered by terrestrial broadband. Most people I know have broadband.

There was a friend in France who was not on the broadband map there, and we started a "Riggers beware" warning in the thread title, if there were going to be a lot of photos. (It was Sale Sharks rugby, so there were just occasions when there was a photo thread. It is split into 50 (or is it 100) posts per page, so if some of the posts were quite sizeable they would take an age to load: much better, I believe for pages to be set by size rather then numbers of posts, when the number is set that high.)

Wayne recommends sizes no larger that 800 pixels (on the wider dimension) at 72 pixels an inch, so file sizes aren't too great.

I am mainly using a notebook now. The screen is 1024x600, I do have a problem with the larger image sizes fitting on screen. I can just nip upstairs and view on the main computer, so it's not a real problem to me.

The other factor affecting file size is the jpg compression. Photoshop runs 1-12 when saving to jpg. I generally save at 10 (as the best trade off of size and quality) but for forums I will often save at lower quality, say 6 ,7 or 8 to further cut down size without introducing too much artefact.

I presume in general everyone is viewing things without too much problem.

The main point of this post was just to enquire how many of you are on dial-up, and whether the pages are loading okay if you are.

[Deleted]

I'm on 1.5 gig dsl but I know folks in rural areas who still are on dialup.

A 800 pixel wide 72 ppi photo is going to normally be less than 100K, which dial up handles easily. It will be that small if it is save with the "save for web" option in Photoshop--I think most graphics programs have a similar option. Those files are about 1/3 the size they would be saving as standard jpegs.

Some claim they lose detail if they save at 72ppi. If you plan to print the photo that might be the case, but not on a computer screen. My screen resolution is 1980 x 1080 (24 inch screen) and I can't see any difference in sharpness between an 800 pixel wide image saved at 72 ppi and one saved at 200 ppi. In addition, saving at higher resolution means it's easier for someone to steal your photo and use it commercially.

Wayne

[herron]

I'm on a DSL line, too, and seldom have trouble with any files, even the video files my son sends of the grandkids.

I think the 800 pixel width at 72dpi has long been recommended here (I do it on my own Collecting Mamiya 35mm forum, too) is designed to allow fast loading for our members who are limited to dial-up (and there are several), and to keep scrolling to a minimum. It's annoying to have an image that requires a lot of left-to-right movement to view, since it also affects everything that comes after it.

[Randy]

I've got Roadrunner High Speed Cable Internet with Turbo Boost....what ever that is.

[daveh]

Ah, the famous turbo boost. I've no idea either.

[Doug T.]

We live in a very rural area, and I know a lot of people who don't have access to cable ( no roadrunner), and are forced to make do with dial up. Some areas still have party lines! Remember those? We're fortunate enough to live close enough to a city, if you can call Binghamton a city, and have DSL.

[Rachel]

This is a hot topic here in East Anglia, UK. Many people in the rural areas are unable to get broadband. Rural businesses are particularly hard hit by this.

Living on the edge of a city I am able to get broadband although only at about 4 meg. We do have cable in the road which would give me faster access but I can't be bothered to get connected. The phone line broadband is good enough for me.

[daveh]

So it would appear that most on here are on broadband. Rachel, like you, I am on phone line broadband. I actually have no idea what speed it is, but it is certainly fast enough for what I need. Cable finishes about 3 miles away (heading towards Birkenhead) so that isn't an option open to us anyway.

[nikonbob]

Where I live the city owns it's own telephone company and they supply the services within the city including internet connection. There are other providers also but I support the city owned company. Our highspeed net connection is rated at "up to" 8 mps. It is plenty fast enough for me. Boy I do remember party lines from my youth, about 50 years ago, and did not think they still existed.

Bob

[vintageslrs]

Well, being in a small town in rural New Hampshire, we have no cable in town and we are too far away from the sub-station to get DSL through our phone company...so we are pretty much stuck with dial-up. And it is a hassle for many sites which have so many graphics on their home page that it takes forever to load and sometimes "times out".

I also have a Net Book which operates off of Verizon Wireless. And the signal is so weak that most of the time (at home) it is as slow as dial-up. However on the road, it is fast. The advantage of the Net Book at home is at least Sherri and I can be online at the same time. That cuts our online time in half.

Bob

[daveh]

Bob, tatt would drive me nuts.

There is a group of websites in Britain - sportsnetwork - which would be a real problem for you. In the last few days there has been an advert for the Saab 9-5 which puts a big photo on as background wallpaper. Most have said that it hasn't affected their speed, but certainly on my notebook, with relatively slow processor and only 1gb of shared RAM, things slowed quite considerably. I run firefox and had adblock loaded but it obviously wasn't really doing its stuff. However, when I reloaded it, adblock, with a new prescription the Saab disappeared, as have other adverts: things on the sportsnetwork websites are now running considerably faster.