Need text box to float left beside image

[Turtle91]

Try setting the width:6em (instead of height) and leave height:auto (or remove it as auto is default).

I know it is a little backwards to set width with a "height value" (em), but it works.

[eggheadbooks1]

You're right. Completely counterintuitive but it works. Changed the em value from height to width. The images don't skew anymore when up- or down-sized, though 6em does not actually translate into 6 lines of text; more like five. Will tweak.

Well done.

Thanks,
Michelle

[Turtle91]

Yay!! Have fun!

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by eggheadbooks1

though 6em does not actually translate into 6 lines of text; more like five. Will tweak.

That's because the line height is probably something like 1.2, and 6/1.2=5

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by eggheadbooks1

The difference in size between the jpeg and png is about 30 - 40%. About half his images are line art or text only, the other half are continuous tone (where the jpeg is smaller and better than the png). Some are in-between, probably 256-color. The client sent me fairly large jpegs, most of which have had to be downsized for the ebooks, so I should be able to get a decent png.

Originally Posted by eggheadbooks1

TI did a quick text of two images; the quality was nearly identical but the file size was about -30%.

I showed off some work I did with compression of charts here (Example chart goes from JPG ~130 KBs to Indexed/Compressed PNG at 44.5 KBs (and looks WAY cleaner)):

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=26

With black and white diagrams, the savings are even more pronounced than just these few color images (B&W/Grayscale/few colors compresses VERY well in PNG).

In this large project I am in the process of working on, I generated 175 very high quality (almost all were ~1200 px wide) PNGs of Tables/Charts/Diagrams. These compressed down to 9.10 MBs.

The equivalent 175 JPGs would be ~18 MBs (I just did a rough generation of JPGs from the original source). I could probably squeeze a few MBs out by optimizing the JPGs a little, but they will reach nowhere near 9.10 MBs.

JPG is a format built for "natural/photographic" images, and the algorithm is not the greatest when dealing with "artificial" type images.

When dealing with delivery fees and/or bandwidth costs for overly large book files, cutting needless MBs off of the book is very important!

[mrmikel]

It would seem the most efficient would be some vector graphic format for such items, but I don't know how well they are supported.