# Quick question concerning image quality **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [April 8, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711 "2004-04-08T03:25:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gragland](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/forum.kirupa.com/gragland/32/422_2.png) [@gragland](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/gragland)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/1 "2004-04-08T03:25:05Z")
I am trying to make the graffics for my website as small as possible. My question is that: If I compress a graffic as much as I can without it becoming too noticably “bad quality” or much different from the orginal (and im using a 1024x768 resolution), then is it gonna look very bad when viewed at a 800x600 resolution?? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/2 "2004-04-08T03:28:20Z")
I think you can make it a fixed pixel size instead of a percentage size, so it doesn’t change sizes on different resolutions ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/3 "2004-04-08T03:32:20Z")
> [@blah-de-blah](#): > > I think you can make it a fixed pixel size instead of a percentage size, so it doesn’t change sizes on different resolutions I cant do that with the site im making because it contains photos which will look distorted if flash andjusts their size. I did some testing and jpg/60 quality setting seems good at both resolutions. Is there any reason to use png or another file type instead? JPG seems to give me the smallest filesizes. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/4 "2004-04-08T03:41:27Z")
> [@gragland](#): > > I cant do that with the site im making because it contains photos which will look distorted if flash andjusts their size. I did some testing and jpg/60 quality setting seems good at both resolutions. Is there any reason to use png or another file type instead? JPG seems to give me the smallest filesizes. EDIT: WTH, I imported the graffic into flash and set compression to 0 and jpg quality to 100, but it looks wierd. The graffic is a box that takes up the whole stage that a thick brown border. But for some reason the brown border is much thicker on the top and left sides. Thats weird! Whats wrong? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/5 "2004-04-08T03:41:40Z")
I think you should stick with JPG’s. They work well for me, but i’m not the person to ask about this so…:-/ ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 6:40am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/6 "2004-04-08T06:40:17Z")
search image quality in the forums, and you will see that imported a compressed jpeg into flash which compresses the file again will end up in ugly images, if you import PNG32 or PNG24 files (which are uncompresses) into flash , while they are large files to import you can then compress this image in flash by going to its properties in the library and you will see that you can get a low file size for the image with great quality images. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/7 "2004-04-08T12:19:03Z")
is that means PNG32 or PNG24 is good moer than jpg… :h: ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/8 "2004-04-08T12:24:11Z")
yes, well in quality it is because its not compressed. its a uncompression format which also allows transparency, what flash allows you to do is compress the images that you bring into it. So like i said if you were to bring in a jpeg that had compression and then set up the compression to a percentage of jpg in flash, then it would look blurry and terrible due to the double compression. To prevent this happening it is common practise within using images in flash to bring them in as PNG32 or PNG24 and let flash do the compression. If you were to search for image quality in flash you will see i answered this many times over. hope this helps. cheers .soulty ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 12:35pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/9 "2004-04-08T12:35:19Z")
thanks .soulty but i want to tell you i didn’t use compression option in flash any times… is it useful for reduce the size … i mean of course it’s but with the way i i’ve to do it or it doesn’t make deffernce. by the way i like PNG i feel it’s more professional than jpeg 😃 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/10 "2004-04-08T12:38:19Z")
and it also supports transparency. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/quick-question-concerning-image-quality/106711/11 "2004-04-08T12:40:34Z")
yea it’s very nice 😃 you can make a lot of good things by this option 😉