Png Vs Jpg!

[Kalphite]

Okay guys, just thought i would show this, since most people here have no ideo what quality means, and thats OK!

Okay here is a PNG image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/op2rules/firefox.pngPNG


And here is THE SAME IMAGE EXCEPT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE RENDER as jpg.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/op2rules/FireFox.jpgJPG


Now do you understand?

Also the size of the file makes a difference, look at this:


PNG:9.39 KB 9620 bytes
JPG:2.89 KB 2958 bytes

Now for the love of 7 kilabytes would anyone think this is a big difference? Oh and then those who use bitmap... the quality is as good as png, however it is a lot bigger than png.

[biggman15]

That depends on the software used... and your knowledge of that software... JPG's can be compressed if you want them too... Here's a comparison of your PNG verse a copy placed in Irfanview and saved as a JPG... Mines a bit larger... 15 kb or so... I could probably even them out a bit... but I don't intend to put in much effort....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/op2rules/firefox.pngPNG - Yours
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7990/clipboard01ld0.jpgJPG - Mine

[Loofiloo]

I think it would be helpful to see the effects of each file type when zoomed in. Here we see a pixelated juice box, created in Paint, saved as a PNG:

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2605/pngiy5.png

Now here's the EXACT same juice box, but this one has been saved as a jpeg:

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/1567/jpegnr9.jpg

EEEEEWWW!!

[biggman15]

Once again... software... Here's another simple copy into Irfanview... JPG....

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b134/biggman15/juicebox.jpg

JPG's only suck if you don't know how to use them... I'm not saying that PNG's are not better... They do the same job without any thought... but there's absolutely nothing wrong with JPG's...

[Loofiloo]

Size comparison:

Juice box:
24-bit Bitmap of the juice box: 543 KB
Jpeg saved in Irfanview: 124 KB
Crappy Jpeg saved in Paint: 29.5 KB
PNG saved in Paint: 8.55 KB

FF Userbar:
Irfanview Jpeg: 15.2 KB
PNG: 9.39 KB
Crappy Jpeg: 2.88 KB

It looks to me like PNGs win in both quality and file size. It's not worth it to use a special program that saves high-quality Jpegs when PNGs still make the same quality of picture with an even smaller file.

PNG > JPEG

[biggman15]

In this world? can you honestly tell me filesize still matters... Most people have moved on to broadband... Computers are getting infinitely Larger and Faster... Terabyte hard Drives are on the horizon... And I didn't say that JPG's are better...

[Loofiloo]

File size may not matter much in terms of HARD DRIVE space, though what most people need to be concerned with is image hosting sites. Most sites will not host an image if the file is too large, and so you have the best chances of being able to host an image when you use a PNG.

[biggman15]

True... but even those are growing... I remember earlier last year that Imageshack would not allow more than 1 megabyte per image... now if I'm not mistaken... it allows 1.5... Painted over has also made this change... as I just noticed...

[Kalphite]

I use maj.com, So far i have not seen a limit to the size, nor amount, so whatever it is, it's super large maximum filesize and file limit, so i doubt image hosting sites matter, but for people like me using a 2k laptop with a 119mb ram 333mhz cpu, it makes a difference whether you use png or jpg.

[Xap]

Jpeg's do this annoying thing where a single color is replaced by a bunch of speckles of very similar colors, very annoying when you are trying to "fill" a space with a different color, but you can't because making it a jpeg has scrambled the coors slightly.

[biggman15]

Jpeg's do this annoying thing where a single color is replaced by a bunch of speckles of very similar colors, very annoying when you are trying to "fill" a space with a different color, but you can't because making it a jpeg has scrambled the coors slightly.
Your problems is software... or possibly settings within the software... At any rate... I'm done here...

[Grif392]

So...

Do I win a prize?

Oh, and MNG>everything.

There's a loss in quality, IF you zoom in 8x. Naked eye, looks exactly the same.

And, 5k smaller.

[Was It Me?]

I can tell a difference between the two without zooming in. The .png is better quality.

[Imposter]

I too can see the difference without zooming in, look at the world and you will see light blue speckles in the dark blue sections.

[Xap]

I too can see the difference without zooming in, look at the world and you will see light blue speckles in the dark blue sections.
Yep. That's exactly what I was talking about before.

[Chaz_Fox]

I hate GIF speckles XD anywho, PNG is mostly very 56k friendly, even with some larger pictures. Whenever I create a piece of art through tablet (I use a graphire4, yay) I save it as PNG. Low filesize, no quality loss and no need for fancy software to blow up the filesize for the sake of quality. Heck, you probably have to buy that software too. Or is it free/shareware?

[Kalphite]

There you have it! Now could people start using png's?! I have a reason for not sometimes, my laptop can't support them, only bmp/jpg's but photoshopped pictures i make will ALWAYS be png.

[Was It Me?]

There's a reason why Macs use PNG's by default...

[Kalphite]

You!!! Lucky!!! B******!!!! I Wan't Your Mac!!!! Zomg U R Teh Noobz Zomgt U Hsve Mac And U Doodle Wit Teh <aac U R Supz Noob I Will Use My L337 Skillz And Hazxorz U!!!

[biggman15]

I hate GIF speckles XD anywho, PNG is mostly very 56k friendly, even with some larger pictures. Whenever I create a piece of art through tablet (I use a graphire4, yay) I save it as PNG. Low filesize, no quality loss and no need for fancy software to blow up the filesize for the sake of quality. Heck, you probably have to buy that software too. Or is it free/shareware?
It's free... It's also the one of the most popular basic imageviewing/editing programs on the web....
http://www.irfanview.com/

[Xap]

Yay, ifranview.:) I use that, but it still does the same thing with jpegs.

[biggman15]

Yay, ifranview.:) I use that, but it still does the same thing with jpegs.
You just need to change some simple settings.... while saving...
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/830/settings29tg.th.jpg (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=settings29tg.jpg)
It only does what you tell it too... much like all software...

[Xap]

Oh! I get it now! Thank you!:)

[John Brooks]

I think PNG is better.

[Xap]

Who said it isn't?

[Kalphite]

It's because he didn't read any of the posts, he just jumped in like a 5 year old that hears one word he understands and replies to it, he thought i was making a poll, due to a lack of common sense and information.

[John Brooks]

It's because he didn't read any of the posts, he just jumped in like a 5 year old that hears one word he understands and replies to it, he thought i was making a poll, due to a lack of common sense and information.


I was just stating my opinion, and what you said offends me. I didn't think you were making a poll at all. I'm not an idiot.

[Kalphite]

Still a pretty dumb thing to say, from the OP it's telling people to use png rather than jpg, because it is both smaller, and higher quality, and other posts were comparing, and showing what i said in other ways, and also showing how jpg can still have good quality, etc.

Then you jump in and say you like pngs more... don't you think that was a little uncalled for?

Okay fine sorry for insulting about the dumb part :P

[???revived]

Now now kids, behave.

And my opinion? I don't really care, as I'm not really computer-wise and stuff...

[evott-k]

my mac is defaulted to PNG, but I thought JPG was used more often.
Also, Ive noticed that some web page design software will not accept PNG as a format.

As for the upload speed, I will let someone else answer the question for you.

[AWP]

Yup, this spambots are getting smarter and smarter... but not smart enough...

*reported*

[Xap]

He posted in another topic too. Seems like an unusual bot though.

[jasonm06]

That depends on the software used... and your knowledge of that software... JPG's can be compressed if you want them too... Here's a comparison of your PNG verse a copy placed in Irfanview and saved as a JPG... Mines a bit larger... 15 kb or so... I could probably even them out a bit... but I don't intend to put in much effort....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/op2rules/firefox.pngPNG - Yours
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7990/clipboard01ld0.jpgJPG - Mine

could not have said it better my self

[Zwaken]

Wow...Necromancer here raised this from the dead.

[Samail]

Judging by the posts, either a bot or just someone who doesn't know proper... postingness.