Blotter updated: 06/17/12Show/Hide Show All

Image

Tag History
(edit info)
Rating

Prev | Index | Next

Comments

Anonymous
#438104
10 months ago
Jpg images lack vibrancy in their colours
Anonymous
#438106
10 months ago
Different coloration, just from looking at it.
-flood-
#438112
10 months ago
Without zooming in? It's not even resized.

JPG obviously has a lighter shade.

If that wasn't what I was supposed to notice, then I dunno.
Jackarunda
#438117
10 months ago
I keep telling you guys

a JPG image will be like a third the size of the exact same PNG with almost exactly the same quality

jpegs HAVE their uses, in my opinion being able to achieve such compression with so little loss in quality is remarkable

the anons above me only say they notice a difference because the images are labeled; if you just randomly set the two images together people would not reliably be able to tell which was the jpg and which the png
Ponyholic
#438120
10 months ago
Just to be sure, are you comparing them on different parts of your monitor? They looked different to me too at first, but then I scrolled down and I realized it was because the colour quality on my monitor changes from top to bottom.

In any case, with things that are more toward the photo realistic end of things, pngs make HUGE images that, unless they're being used for archival storage of an original work, are far far oversized (>>38818 is 470.1 KB as a JPG, 6.3 MB as a PNG)
your_waifu
#438134
10 months ago
not really, but then again, i'm blind in one eye so,

also words

also
AdrianBrony
#438136
10 months ago
the jpeg seems lighter and less saturated in the example image. that and png supports transparency.
AdrianBrony
#438145
10 months ago
also, unless you are a business that deals with hundreds of thousands of digital images, does it een matter anymore now that terabyte hard drives are as affordable as 50 gigs once were? I mean, even if the size difference is several megabytes, unless you have practically no space left on your drive, I think it's mostly a non-issue for the average desktop user.
Kein
#438147
10 months ago
@Ponyholic
> it was because the colour quality

>trying to revise colors
> on cheap TN+film with usual color shift
> in 2011



You do realize that you need at last a good VA-matrix to talk about colors when you're using LCD? IPS preferable.
And I'm not even mentioning color calibration.
Ponyholic
#438152
10 months ago
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
JP
#438154
10 months ago
Your first PNG/JPG comparison is bogus. You're taking an ALREADY-COMPRESSED frame of a video, then saving it as PNG. Video compression is not the same as JPG compression, but they're related (8x8 blocks, etc.). Ever tried resaving a JPEG? There's not much difference. You have to use an uncompressed source image, like one of the millions of vector images.
AdrianBrony
#438156
10 months ago
and if I want to work with the image itself and it's a jpg, 9 times out of 10 some sort of artifacting that is too subtle to see ends up derping up my wand select.
Ponyholic
#438160
10 months ago
Yes, the first one wasn't the best choice, but the thing is, people still ARE going to save a compressed image as a png because they assume pngs have godlike powers, so comparing the difference between the way the formats handle already compressed images still seems valid to me.
Ponyholic
#438163
10 months ago
Anyway, I picked bad pictures in general, but I didn't want to use anything I didn't have permission to use. As I mentioned above, the difference between 470.1 KB and 6.3 MB is rather significant, which is the kind of thing I was really wanting to point out.
Kein
#438164
10 months ago
So, in other words you have no idea what are you doing, what I'm saying and how to compare things properly. My job is done here.

Still, I don't get the whole purpose if this post. Whatever.
Crayv
#438167
10 months ago
At first thought that the jpeg seemed lighter as well. Then I tried scrolling and also changing the angle that I am looking at (normally I sit so my eyes are a bit above the center). They look the same when I shifted my view.

With the size hard drives are getting these days most people care little for file size. Though it does make a huge difference when it comes to bandwidth.
Ponyholic
#438169
10 months ago
I'm sorry, I was just trying to be helpful, I thought it would be beneficial to the server, and the users if unnecessarily large images weren't being used, and they looked the same to me.
Ponyholic
#438175
10 months ago
@Crayv: Yeah, bandwidth was one of the things I was thinking of, both as far as the server goes, and people who use mobile browsing, or even just slow connections.
Turin_Aramaia
#438191
10 months ago
JPG still looks blockier in those sharp curves. JPG works by throwing out data and overlaying gradients. Even though the methods have made some recent improvements, it's still lossy, and still apparent in sharp curves.

PNG results also vary by the compression engine used. I prefer saving as raw BMP and doing the PNG compression using Irfanview, as that compresses it down 9 levels and loses no detail whatsoever, utilizing Ken Silverman's PNGOUT system. Sure, it takes a little bit longer, but the results...
Anonymous
#438223
10 months ago
If you upload as a png the file size might piss a few people off; they can convert it if they want. If you upload as jpg the compression is irreversible and you'll piss off more people in the long run.
Flutterguy
#438229
10 months ago
The problem with this is that Photoshop derped the PNG compression making it take much more space than it would actually need.
Otherwise PNG can compress areas of flat color better than JPG, but i prefer JPG for photographs and the like
But, to me, this is pretty much the same as people discussing over valvular and transistorized amplifiers, you (Not Ponyholic but to everyone in general) can not change other people beliefs even if you have some sort of proof the people you are trying to convice has their own proofs. Just use what you like and respect other people choices
Eco
#438271
10 months ago
Don't worry about file sizes for the server's sake; I have basically unlimited disk space, and the long pole is database access, which is entirely irrelevant to image size.

Client-side connections are where image size may be an issue.
Eco
#438273
10 months ago
(Also, I am irrationally passionate about avoiding compression loss, even if it's not normally visible to the naked eye, but that's neither here nor there.)
Ponyholic
#438350
10 months ago
Well, I learned some things, so I don't feel like posting this was totally pointless. Sorry for being a moron though.
Anonymous
#438367
10 months ago
>Saving in .png
>In 2011

Can you believe that they're actually shutting down Napster, too
Anonymous
#438388
10 months ago
jpg for photos, png for everything else. What was svg should stay svg and not be converted to high res png.
Carcer
#438415
10 months ago
JPG is obviously better for saving truecolour images like photographs because PNG, in that case, is preserving detail you can't even see (and is probably just noise anyway). PNG will also be less than efficient at compressing images that have already been lossily compressed (either to JPG or any non-lossless video codec, which is basically all of them) but you can make the argument that it may still be a good idea if your intent is to edit the shot, since resaving as a jpg will introduce more artifacts and errors every time you save.

For rasterised vectors, cartoon drawings, etc. etc., PNG is better; higher quality and usually smaller if you use the right settings when you save. I would tell any artist that if they produce a PNG image that before publishing it, they run it through optiPNG on level 7. It doesn't take much time and can often produce ludicrous compression, especially on reduced-palette or greyscale images, and will fix it if you've done something stupid like leave in an alpha channel when your image has no transparency. Also there's no good reason to interlace PNGs unless they're being used as site design details; interlacing can add a good 20-25% to an image's size. optipng.exe -o7 -i0, people! (or whatever your PNG compression utility of choice is).
GreyAcumane
#438711
10 months ago
Even if the difference isn't immediately visually noticeable, it is IMMEDIATELY noticeable when you go to use a paint bucket or selection tool in photoshop to try adding color/highlights, or just to work with the image in general for photochop edits.

jpgs invariably have minor graphical anomalies around lines and the borders of different colors and trying to clean that up is a bitch when editing.

So if you specifically don't want the work edited, use jpgs. It wont stop anyone who is serious, but it will at least force them to put some effort if they want to make anything look halfway decent, but in the meantime I will continue to favor png images over their jpg versions without exception.