1 person found this helpful
What are you looking for: Better thumbnails or better heroes?
I was looking for you. Thank you Günter. Where have you been all this time?
Thank you for looking for me! But I am there every day (and looking onto my watch: Most of the night too )
But really: What are you looking for: Better thumbnails or better hero images?
The thumbnail quality of a standard slideshow unfortunately can't be influenced by the user. The hero quality will be best, if you use images with exactly(!) the pixel dimensions you need in your layout. Simply have a look onto the "W" and "H" values of your hero image container shown in the "Transform" panel and prepare your images in exactly this size. In this case Muse won't even touch your images. Input quality therefore will be exactly the same as output quality.
If you want "hand optimize" the thumbnails: Don't use a slide show, but a composition widget. You can configure it just like a slideshow. If you do so, you can create your thumbnails by using the exact size of the composition widget's triggers and place (or fill) them into the triggers. If you don't scale these images and place them in original size, Muse won't change anything – the image quality will be completely in your hands!
I've made this on the shadow box targets.
when the thumbnail is clicked, it triggers the shadow box that shows a version of that picture i've optimized via photoshop action using the Fit command. So I'm able to choose the Original Size on the target shadow box.
the big problem is that I've choose an iregular mosaic style similar to flickr thumbnails design. So I can't automate any action to do it in a batch as each row of thumbnails has different pixel heights. Sounds messy, but the results are cool.
Now I can see Muse has definitely no option to set options like what interpolation it will use to downsize the graphics.
this is really sad... I took several hours to hand optimize my thumbnails :T
hopefully they will add this function in the future
Don’t think, such an option would be helpful. The result would be, that a forum like this will be flooded with post of users, who aren’t ready to use such a tool.
And, the essential drawback: If you’d use an algorithm like the ones built into Photoshop, Muse users would fall in rage: „Why the hell is this crappy application THAT slow, when exporting my site?"
If you prepare your images in the exact size you want to place them, quality is completely up to you! If you want „standard“ quality (and Muse does a very good job on that) place your images and let Muse do the work!
Best workflow to do so:
- Build your layout using the „image frame“ tool (= the crossed out rectangle).
- Open the „Transform“ panel to find the exact pixel size.
- Prepare your image in Photoshop in exactly this size.
- When ready, go to Muse, choose the „Place“ command, load your images into your „Place“ cursor, and click onto every image frame to place it.
A better result can’t be achieved – not in Muse and not in any other web creation tool.
I think the main problem is, that users, coming from print design, use images, which are way(!!) to big (no exception: 4000 x 2500 px images placed in Muse with 200 x 130 px). The result has to be suboptimal, when reducing size in such exorbitant dimensions without exactly knowing, what this will cause.