Images for Kindle devices

[Dabcar]

What's the best format for images in Kindle devices? My images at present are in transparent PNGs, but that produces black backgrounds within Kindle Previewer, so I'm guessing that Kindle doesn't like transparency.

Also, what sizes are recommended. I see in the Amazon Kindle guide very large sizes for modern devices, but what's the best rule of thumb?

Is there any difference for epub devices (not Kindle)?

I have tried to search for answers to this in the threads, but can't come up with anything, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating or not looking in the right place!

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by Dabcar

My images at present are in transparent PNGs, but that produces black backgrounds within Kindle Previewer, so I'm guessing that Kindle doesn't like transparency.

Correct. The Amazon Kindle Publishing Guidelines 2019.2 states:

10.4.1 Use Supported Input Formats

Kindle devices and reading applications do not support TIFF, multi-frame GIFs, or any image with a transparency.

Read the rest of that section for more format guidelines.

Originally Posted by Dabcar

Also, what sizes are recommended. I see in the Amazon Kindle guide very large sizes for modern devices, but what's the best rule of thumb?

My understanding is that Amazon has gotten more strict lately about requiring those large image sizes. (Others with more practical experience will likely comment. I don't publish books.)

[JSWolf]

What happens if you cannot find an image that's the size that Amazon wants it to be? Not all images are 1800 lines (for a full screen image)?

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What happens if you cannot find an image that's the size that Amazon wants it to be? Not all images are 1800 lines (for a full screen image)?

More from Amazon's Publishing Guidelines:

10.4.5 Photographs Should Be Optimized for High-Resolution Devices
...
Some images, such as historical photographs, may not be available at 300 ppi or greater. In these situations, provide the best image quality possible. Amazon strongly recommends images meet a minimum of 300 ppi. Any images below 72 ppi will cause the book to fail conversion.

[Dabcar]

Thanks for the help.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Correct. The Amazon Kindle Publishing Guidelines 2019.2 states:

Read the rest of that section for more format guidelines.

My understanding is that Amazon has gotten more strict lately about requiring those large image sizes. (Others with more practical experience will likely comment. I don't publish books.)

Indeed, I can speak from first-hand knowledge; Amazon is absolutely pushing publishers to adopt and use the guidelines stated for the "Great on Kindle" program--1200px wide for 100% width; 900px for 75% (and this is the size that they are targeting as "ideal" because they feel it's the size that works best on smartphones); 600px for 50% and 300px for 25%.

I know this because we've had publishers show up with "Kindle Quality Notices" (which infuriates me) about images that don't meet these "guidelines."

They also seem to have no sense of humor a'tall about odd sizes--sizes that are not 25-50-75-100, by the way. As in, 60% width, or what-have-you.

We've been waiting for several MONTHS for an answer on odd-sized images.

The answer seems to be--SEEMS--that if your images are low-rez, or the wrong size, etc., you simply won't qualify for GOK (Great on Kindle). And you may have to go through the KQN dance, telling them that you can't fix this or that.

Hitch

[hobnail]

Hitch, does amazon differentiate between little images, like an illuminated cap at the beginning of a chapter's paragraph, versus the cover image or one at the top of the chapter? Or things like fleurons?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Hitch, does amazon differentiate between little images, like an illuminated cap at the beginning of a chapter's paragraph, versus the cover image or one at the top of the chapter? Or things like fleurons?

So far, yes.

They seem to be distinguishing between fleurons and other decorative geegaws and "real" images. If you're going to ask me for their criteria, for saying "oh, this is a geegaw" and "that's a bigger thing that needs to be 900px wide," I got nuthin'.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Given the wide L/R margin on a Kindle, what is the usable resolution?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Given the wide L/R margin on a Kindle, what is the usable resolution?

I think you're confuddling this, Wolfie.

It's 300dpi, @1200, 900, 600 and 300px.

Amazon wants this for all "important" images. They distinguish the others, like fleurons, as not important. They specifically say:

Images are considered important if they are meaningful to the content. Examples of important images include images with captions, maps, tables, equations, line art, illustrations, and photographs. All important images must meet the minimum 300 ppi standard.

Images are considered not important if they are only for decorative purposes or do not add value to the content. Examples of non-important images include the back covers, fleurons, logos, and social media icons.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I think you're confuddling this, Wolfie.

It's 300dpi, @1200, 900, 600 and 300px.

Amazon wants this for all "important" images. They distinguish the others, like fleurons, as not important. They specifically say:



Hitch

Nope. I'm not confusing anything, I'm curious as to how the image sizes Amazon is requiring fits with the Kindle's actual usable resolution.

How do these hi-res full screen images work on say an old Kindle 1 or 2? I know on old Sony Readers with hi-res images, they can either slow down a lot before displaying the image.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Nope. I'm not confusing anything, I'm curious as to how the image sizes Amazon is requiring fits with the Kindle's actual usable resolution.

How do these hi-res full screen images work on say an old Kindle 1 or 2? I know on old Sony Readers with hi-res images, they can either slow down a lot before displaying the image.

They're fine. The older eInks actually have a very crisp rendering. I've not seen any problems and I still test on a K2.

Hitch

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Hitch

So far, yes.

If you're going to ask me for their criteria, for saying "oh, this is a geegaw" and "that's a bigger thing that needs to be 900px wide," I got nuthin'.

Hitch

Yeah, that's what I was wondering about.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Yeah, that's what I was wondering about.

I assume you saw my quote from the PG, above, about how they define "important" images versus not; I doubt that they have an automated decider for that. They probably have an algorithm, (of course) that says "any image smaller than X is likely not important."

But that's just a guess, of course.

Hitch

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I assume you saw my quote from the PG, above, about how they define "important" images versus not; I doubt that they have an automated decider for that. They probably have an algorithm, (of course) that says "any image smaller than X is likely not important."

But that's just a guess, of course.

Hitch

Yes I did. I'd originally also had "it sounds like just a bunch of hand waving" but took it out. Now I think maybe I should have left it in.