Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.

Did you find this helpful?
Yes
 87%  [ 14 ]
No
 12%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 16

Kllrnohj wrote:
There is a reason high-end digital cameras and SLRs don't save as JPEG by default. It is HORRIBLE for photos - remember the whole lossy issue? Just by using a JPEG format, you piss away some of your quality (regardless of how high you set its compression level). However, since you can't use RAW formats in a website, PNG is therefore the only possible alternative. Unless, of course, you LIKE blurry, crappy looking pictures

Ummm, not sure what you're smoking, but all DSLRs save as superfine JPEG by default, and I use JPEG exclusively when dealing with sending photos online. If you truly want unsurpassed quality, you must use TIFF or PSD. There simply isn't another alternative. Tell me, have you ever looked at a 8.2 megapixel JPEG saved as superfine and compared it to the same picture in RAW format at 100%? JPEG is excellent for saving high quality photos without a noticeable loss of quality (this loss is apparent, however, in similar colored areas of a photo, where post processing would fail because of the lack of detail), but *nobody* I know in the photo business, either prosumer or professional uses PNG.

Edit: If you'll wait a few minutes, I'll get comparison pictures up. (The same image in JPEG, PNG, and TIFF [default raw])

Edit Two:
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/jpeg.jpegJPEG saved on quality setting 10 in CS2 from the original JPEG
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/png.pngSame picture saved in PNG from the original JPEG
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/original.cr2Original RAW File
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/original.jpegOriginal JPEG File
Kllrnohj wrote:
calc84maniac wrote:
I don't really find this helpful, as everyone is arguing about what's better for what... Rolling Eyes


No, we are now all in agreement (as far as I know) - Kerm just overplayed JPEG and downplayed PNG based soley on its browser support, and not the actual formats strengths and weaknesses (which has since been corrected)
Seconded. We are indeed in agreement. And Allyn, we're talking about web images here, not printing images. That's a completely separate topic.
KermMartian wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
calc84maniac wrote:
I don't really find this helpful, as everyone is arguing about what's better for what... Rolling Eyes


No, we are now all in agreement (as far as I know) - Kerm just overplayed JPEG and downplayed PNG based soley on its browser support, and not the actual formats strengths and weaknesses (which has since been corrected)
Seconded. We are indeed in agreement. And Allyn, we're talking about web images here, not printing images. That's a completely separate topic.

I know this, and in web images you don't want unwieldy file sizes that PNG creates and since JPEG creates *almost* the same quality (with differences only perceptable to photo editors), I don't see why he wants to use PNG for large photographs when the filesizes are much higher--resulting in larger bandwidth costs for little reason. PNG is supposed to replace GIF... not JPEG.
because photoshopping around artifacts is annoying Wink
allynfolksjr wrote:
...I don't see why he wants to use PNG for large photographs when the filesizes are much higher--resulting in larger bandwidth costs for little reason. PNG is supposed to replace GIF... not JPEG.
Kllrnohj often pushes for quality over size, since he says that almost everyone has a high-speed connection these days,
allynfolksjr wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
There is a reason high-end digital cameras and SLRs don't save as JPEG by default. It is HORRIBLE for photos - remember the whole lossy issue? Just by using a JPEG format, you piss away some of your quality (regardless of how high you set its compression level). However, since you can't use RAW formats in a website, PNG is therefore the only possible alternative. Unless, of course, you LIKE blurry, crappy looking pictures

Ummm, not sure what you're smoking, but all DSLRs save as superfine JPEG by default, and I use JPEG exclusively when dealing with sending photos online. If you truly want unsurpassed quality, you must use TIFF or PSD. There simply isn't another alternative. Tell me, have you ever looked at a 8.2 megapixel JPEG saved as superfine and compared it to the same picture in RAW format at 100%? JPEG is excellent for saving high quality photos without a noticeable loss of quality (this loss is apparent, however, in similar colored areas of a photo, where post processing would fail because of the lack of detail), but *nobody* I know in the photo business, either prosumer or professional uses PNG.

Edit: If you'll wait a few minutes, I'll get comparison pictures up. (The same image in JPEG, PNG, and TIFF [default raw])

Edit Two:
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/jpeg.jpegJPEG saved on quality setting 10 in CS2 from the original JPEG
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/png.pngSame picture saved in PNG from the original JPEG
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/original.cr2Original RAW File
http://students.washington.edu/nikky/original.jpegOriginal JPEG File


Nikky wins.
allynfolksjr wrote:
Ummm, not sure what you're smoking, but all DSLRs save as superfine JPEG by default, and I use JPEG exclusively when dealing with sending photos online. If you truly want unsurpassed quality, you must use TIFF or PSD. There simply isn't another alternative. Tell me, have you ever looked at a 8.2 megapixel JPEG saved as superfine and compared it to the same picture in RAW format at 100%?


I'm not smoking anything. RAW is what the camera actually takes, which is then usually converted to TIFF on the computer. Thanks for backing me up while attempting to disagree with me Razz

And what a DSLR saves as default isn't necessarily its best option, either. Our point-and-shoot defaulted to medium quality Rolling Eyes

Quote:
JPEG is excellent for saving high quality photos without a noticeable loss of quality (this loss is apparent, however, in similar colored areas of a photo, where post processing would fail because of the lack of detail), but *nobody* I know in the photo business, either prosumer or professional uses PNG.


That doesn't make it the correct OR better choice - just like web developers still use IE to do the majority of their testing Wink
It's sounding more and more to me like there's two camps here, and I'm not sure which I fall into. Originally I was on the "jpg over png for photos" side, but Kllrnohj convinced me otherwise. From some of the digg comments, it seems there's some PNG compression tweaking that can be done to get filesize way down with little or no quality loss.
KermMartian wrote:
It's sounding more and more to me like there's two camps here, and I'm not sure which I fall into. Originally I was on the "jpg over png for photos" side, but Kllrnohj convinced me otherwise. From some of the digg comments, it seems there's some PNG compression tweaking that can be done to get filesize way down with little or no quality loss.


correct-a-mundo.

Unless you are making pictures greater than say 12 or 16 megapixels the difference in filesize isn't worth worrying about. and PNG is a for more flexible format, allowing for interlacing, and lossless compression. JPEG compression is extremely lossy and the difference in filesize seems to be exponentially proportional to the shittiness of the resulting picture. you set a JPEG at 95% quality and there is no noticeable change in filesize, set it 85% quality, and suddenly there's artifacts everywhere and blurriness
You incompetent n00bs. Bitmaps (.bmp) are the way to go. Rolling Eyes

jk

EDIT: Here's an example of its amazing quality: Click
Surprised I didn't know that 404 messages were bitmaps
Harq wrote:
Surprised I didn't know that 404 messages were bitmaps
Me neither! That's totally amazing!
Yeah, and they look pretty sharp, don't they?
Just Joking

Oh, I must have accidentally deleted it earlier today when I when I was deleting some files in my website after an incident...
Here's my two cents. When taking screenshots on my computer in Windows, they always defaulted to .bmp. Sure the quality was perfect, but there was no way photobucket was going to allow an upload of >15mb. So I would open it up in Nero Photo-Editor. At first I would save it as a jpeg (as I was most familiar with that format) which produced a file of about half of that size, but it was noticeably blurred. One time, I accidentally selected .PNG instead of jpeg. The file that saved was around 700kb. Amazed at how small it was, I opened it, fully expecting it to be blurry as hell. To my surprise, it was better than the jpeg (still obviously less than the .bmp). So from then on I have used .PNG for these sorts of images as the compression/quality ratio is amazing.
uhh... chip? PNG and BMP have identical quality... PNG is loss-less, meaning no data or quality is sacrificed. So if you think you noticed a difference in image quality, it is either Nero doing something stupid, or your eyes playing tricks on you (as in you expected a loss of quality, so you made yourself think you saw a loss of image quality)
Are you sure there can be no lossy compression of png? My research has indicates PNG supports some lossy compression...
Yes, I am Smile

Quote:
PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a bitmap image format that employs lossless data compression.


Thats not to say that whatever is doing the encoding necessarily does a good job with it, as they mention in the wikipedia entry
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 2
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement