Death to jpeg!

[omniking3]

At least in forums. I'm willing to accept gif's because you can animate them, but jpeg's are BAD in signatures. Pictures, yes. HiDef signatures, NO. That's why...I am promoting the use of PNG! Yes, png! The most wonderful format. I used it almost 4 years ago when most websites had never heard of it. Png is a wonderful format. Png stands for Portable Network Graphics. It has interlacing, alpha channels and gamma correction, and is compressed on average 5 to 25% better than GIF. It is an open-source format. It was created with SINGLE-IMAGE QUALITY in mind, so no animations. ANother format called MNG (Multi-image Network Graphics) exists but it is not as widespread! So spread the love, and the high quality of the PNG format! For those who are skeptics, make a nice sig in photoshop and hit "save for web", then select "4-up". Click each one to see its properties. Change one of them to PNG-24 and compare to the others. Much better. DOWN WITH JPEG! UP WITH ALPHA LAYERS AND PNG!

:grinjump:

[genericusername2]

I couldn't be bothered even reading this crap.

[omniking3]

Have you ever designed a signature in your life? I'm seeing way to many jpegs around here, and I don't like them.

[Ωmega]

[points to current signature]

Yep, my sig is a jpeg. And imho, its of great quality.

Ive done sigs in Jpeg and Png before, and have comapred them, and I can honestly say I dont see much of a difference. The only real use I see for pngs is its nifty transparency.

[omniking3]

That's the thing. Your jpeg looks fine to YOU. But it's compression loses quality when it gets over to me. Png never loses quality. Right now, your sig is being compressed, sent to me, and resized to my monitor, through that, it loses some quality. Png does not lose that quality. Give me a reason to use jpeg vs png. Why NOT use png?

By the way, I really like the alternating directional scan lines! one way on the outside, one way on the render/extraction!

[Ωmega]

That's the thing. Your jpeg looks fine to YOU. But it's compression loses quality when it gets over to me. Png never loses quality. Right now, your sig is being compressed, sent to me, and resized to my monitor, through that, it loses some quality. Png does not lose that quality. Give me a reason to use jpeg vs png. Why NOT use png?
To be honest, Ive never thought of it that way, I'll give you that. But Ive seen others use jpeg and they all look fine to me as well.

And in forum cases, I think the compression of the images is a good thing. Because graphics eat bandwidth, which makes for a slower connection, which irks me. This is why we really dont allow the posting of random pictures in threads, its slows down everyones connections.

[Eris]

That's the thing. Your jpeg looks fine to YOU. But it's compression loses quality when it gets over to me. Png never loses quality. Right now, your sig is being compressed, sent to me, and resized to my monitor, through that, it loses some quality. Png does not lose that quality. Give me a reason to use jpeg vs png. Why NOT use png?

Eh? Do some bloody fact checking, the compression is not done on the fly through the wires. If an image looks one way on your computer, and you send it to another computer, it will look the same (except for monitor settings, brightness, saturation, color temperature, that sort of thing.) Neither JPEG or PNG should change, at all, on a bit level when transferred over the intertubes (barring weird proxy settings.)

Comparing PNG to JPEG is like comparing a hammer to a saw. They both have their areas they excel in. JPEG is horrible for images with solid color fields -- PNG is great for that. So, if you're designing a website with lots of graphics, use PNG. But if you're saving photographs, you may want to consider JPEG, since it's specifically designed for just that.

[omniking3]

Exactly! jpeg is good for photos! But signatures should not be used with it. And maybe you should do some fact checking. When not open, pictures are stored as compressed data. When opened on ANY computer, they are decompressed. When they are sent over the net, the compression pattern is sent with them, and it is not always guaranteed to remain as high-quality as it was on your own computer. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEND A PICTURE BETWEEN A UNIX AND MS-DOS FILESYSTEM. Machintosh, which I'm using, is Open BSD, a form of Unix, while MS-DOS is Windows.

Png is called Portable Network Graphics fr a reason. It places it emphasis on high quality that can be sent over a network with compression better than GIF, making it EXCELLENT for forums. It eats about 5% less bandwidth than a GIF of JPEG.

And seriously. If jpeg is a saw and png is a hammer, and a signature is a wheel made out of rock? Which are you going to use to crush the rock and make it into something?

[Innovative]

But what if the signature is an oak?
/worthless post

[Eris]

Exactly! jpeg is good for photos! But signatures should not be used with it. And maybe you should do some fact checking. When not open, pictures are stored as compressed data. When opened on ANY computer, they are decompressed. When they are sent over the net, the compression pattern is sent with them, and it is not always guaranteed to remain as high-quality as it was on your own computer. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEND A PICTURE BETWEEN A UNIX AND MS-DOS FILESYSTEM. Machintosh, which I'm using, is Open BSD, a form of Unix, while MS-DOS is Windows.

Ah, but unless the image is changed when it is opened, it will not be re-compressed. Macintosh is not OpenBSD. It is loosely based on OpenBSD. And it is not a form of UNIX either. It's a clone of UNIX. And MS-DOS is not Windows. Windows has been separated from MS-DOS for some 8 years. Seriously, where do you get these facts?

There may be a slight difference in quality between rendering devices, but it should not be prominent, only due to display settings.



Png is called Portable Network Graphics fr a reason. It places it emphasis on high quality that can be sent over a network with compression better than GIF, making it EXCELLENT for forums. It eats about 5% less bandwidth than a GIF of JPEG.

How can it use 5% less bandwidth than a GIF AND JPEG? They are fundamentally different formats. GIF is completely lossless, while JPEG looses data like the titanic takes on water. Surely compression quality must play a part of this? I ask again, where are you getting your facts?



And seriously. If jpeg is a saw and png is a hammer, and a signature is a wheel made out of rock? Which are you going to use to crush the rock and make it into something?

That doesn't even remotely make sense.

[omniking3]

I'm not talking about the operating system...I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FILESYSTEM. The way file's are stored and managed.


Bottom-line, Png's are very good for signatures.

[Bionicman]

Is this payed commercial? :)

[prototypetetra]

I will answer this very briefly and direct to the point.

PNG is used for images that does not require a lot of varrying colors. Like an image with 50 colors for example, like a logo or in this case a very simple signature. However, when it comes to photos and images with a lot of colors, JPG is best when it comes to compression. PNG is said to be an enhancement on GIF, however when it comes to animated images, GIF is still the best since it is the only one with such a capability among the three.

The level of compression with JPG can be controlled ~ image quality.

So which is better? It depends on the image.

[Sanosuke23]

To build on the "omniking's being fanatical" sentiment that seems to be the response to this thread, my sig is made from a photo. Your format is ill-suited for it.

.png is great for large vectors and even sigs with large stretches of color, but it's not a replacement for .jpg.

On a related note, I don't care about your Hi-Def experience. I should artifact up my sig out of spite.

[PanzerJager]

Well.. Once again (for the like 20th time) Eris has gotten the point in once again..


As for omniking3 he is probably one of those 15 year old kids with their Macintosh obsessions.. When will they learn that you cannot argue with people who are (a lot) smarter than they are..



I'm not talking about the operating system...I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FILESYSTEM. The way file's are stored and managed.

Doesn't Macintosh use the HFS+ file system? I see no reason why this is at all related to the image quality of a JPEG file..

[Eris]

I'm not talking about the operating system...I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FILESYSTEM. The way file's are stored and managed.

The file system is just a table of where on the disk data is located. The actual data isn't touched, unless it transferred to a system with another endianness. But then, the only thing that happens is that the data is stored "backwards."


Bottom-line, Png's are very good for signatures.

I don't deny that. If your image has sharp lines or text, you should not be saving it as JPEG.


Is this payed commercial? :)

The PNG format is free. No corporation or commercial interest owns it, so I doubt that. Just a random format-zealot.

[Kaitou Ace]

Viewing a JPEG online doesn't re-compress it for your file system O_o; the compression is set initially, and when you view or save it, it is saved as a binary file with all the bits exactly the same as they were when the file was created. It will not be re-compressed until you edit it, by rotating, cropping, or working with it in an image editor. A JPEG saved at a high enough compression ratio will not randomly create image artifacts because you viewed it, unless you are using something like AOL which used to run a proxy to re-convert all viewed images into .art format and re-compress them.

PNG is a good format for a lot of things, but JPEG is quite useful, and there is no need to create non-existent problems with it. O_o;

[PanzerJager]

The Webmaster Speaks!!! We Must Obey!!

[Eris]

Viewing a JPEG online doesn't re-compress it for your file system O_o; the compression is set initially, and when you view or save it, it is saved as a binary file with all the bits exactly the same as they were when the file was created. It will not be re-compressed until you edit it, by rotating, cropping, or working with it in an image editor. A JPEG saved at a high enough compression ratio will not randomly create image artifacts because you viewed it, unless you are using something like AOL which used to run a proxy to re-convert all viewed images into .art format and re-compress them.

PNG is a good format for a lot of things, but JPEG is quite useful, and there is no need to create non-existent problems with it. O_o;

The only disadvantage with JPEG is that it's a lossy format. Which means that if you re-compress a file several times, you will degenerate the quality of the file. But that really doesn't matter in the PNG vs. JPEG war, since there are better formats than PNG one could save a master copy in (a format that supports layers for an example).

[Kaitou Ace]

Well thats true of course. My general preference is CR2 for photos, which is the canon raw format, or .psd if it was a JPEG initially that had to be modified.

[daft]

At least in forums. I'm willing to accept gif's because you can animate them, but jpeg's are BAD in signatures. Pictures, yes. HiDef signatures, NO. That's why...I am promoting the use of PNG! Yes, png! The most wonderful format. I used it almost 4 years ago when most websites had never heard of it. Png is a wonderful format. Png stands for Portable Network Graphics. It has interlacing, alpha channels and gamma correction, and is compressed on average 5 to 25% better than GIF. It is an open-source format. It was created with SINGLE-IMAGE QUALITY in mind, so no animations. ANother format called MNG (Multi-image Network Graphics) exists but it is not as widespread! So spread the love, and the high quality of the PNG format! For those who are skeptics, make a nice sig in photoshop and hit "save for web", then select "4-up". Click each one to see its properties. Change one of them to PNG-24 and compare to the others. Much better. DOWN WITH JPEG! UP WITH ALPHA LAYERS AND PNG!

:grinjump:
Sorry, but I'm not about to change my signature for YOUR sake?

[Masali]

You're all missing the point.

No. One. Cares. Except you, apparently. And you're nobody.

[TheAsterisk!]

GO BITMAP!
(smirks)
What's the matter here? Why should a particular filetype for images matter this much on AF?
Get a grip, omniking3. You're making this matter out to be more important than it is.

[Knuffle Bunny]

[points to current signature]

Yep, my sig is a jpeg. And imho, its of great quality.

Ive done sigs in Jpeg and Png before, and have comapred them, and I can honestly say I dont see much of a difference. The only real use I see for pngs is its nifty transparency.

Actually, if you open a jpeg, re-save it, open it again, re-save it again...etc. you will eventually get a big dark blob.

I don't get the point of the thread though. What are we suppose to say?
"DOWN WITH JPEG!" But jpegs use less space. Plus, jpegs aren't that bad if you just save the pic once or twice. Anymore than that and it kills your pixels.

Plus, there are a ton of better image formats to choose form that's probab;y better than png. I'm not sure if AF supports any though. I know it doesn't like psd.

Anywho, who cares? People can save their images and sigs in the format they want. I personally use png. Jpegs annoy me on Photoshop.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Three days into 2008 and we already have some Thread of the Year material right here.

In honor of this thread, I am changing my signature (attached for posterity).

[omniking3]

This is getting way out of proportion... I just said that jpeg shouldn't be used for most signatures, because most signatures ARE NOT PICTURES. Then again, why don't we continue this argument pretending I never posted this.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

This is getting way out of proportion... I just said that jpeg shouldn't be used for most signatures, because most signatures ARE NOT PICTURES. Then again, why don't we continue this argument pretending I never posted this.

I think the point you missed was that most people don't decide what they save their files as to please you, and if they want artifacts in their pictures it's their business.

[Ωmega]

Actually, if you open a jpeg, re-save it, open it again, re-save it again...etc. you will eventually get a big dark blob.

Why would I do that o_O

As for most of my sigs, I usually keep the psd file in case I feel I wanna change it, I never actually mess with the finished product once its a jpeg...OR a png.

Ive also had several graphic classes where I was told: SAVE AS JPEG! The only exception was targa, which was for exporting to 3D Max as textures with transparencies. [that is, if I remember that correctly, I took that class about 6 months ago >_>]

[MuZ0NaZ]

I surely hope you are a troll. If not, you really need to read up on lossy (conversion YCrCb colour space+discrete cosine transform+quantization of the image) vs lossless (only entropy encoding) compression. You can get away pretty easily with loosing some high frequency information with photographs AND signatures, which is best done using a lossy compression scheme (without much quality loss) - and have you noticed that you can actually choose the degree of compression so it doesn't have to look like crap? Not everyone uses alpha transparency, either... As the others say, use the right tool for the right job. Have solid colour blocks/lots of pure gradients/need ability to re-save mutiple times/alpha channels? Use PNG. Saving pictures for web use? Use JPEG.

Also, filesystem does not in any way affect the image you're going to see on your screen, it all depends on the decoder (both PNG and JPEG) and your display. JPEG images are compressed only ONCE, re-transmission != re-compression.

[[Boolean]]

I love alpha channel transparency. ^^ I only recently figured out how to use it in PSP8, and I use it quite often now. I also enjoy the ability to make GIF files with motion, except the program I have for animating lowers the quality dramatically.

I don't use JPEG very much anymore, but occasionally I'll find an image that appears better with it. The only significant thing I don't like about JPEG is that it can't have any form of transparency.

I can't say much more, because I'm only mediocre (if not less than that) when it comes to making graphics.

[Wio]

GO BITMAP!
(smirks)
Bitmap is the new PNG.

[Aizmov]

PNG is an open and free file format that doesn't require a patent license. I support PNG as well :)

[Yurka]

Is the TC serious? >.>

For one .jpg is more widely used than .png plus both look just as fine. My current sigs are .jpg, and I've always saved on that format and never had problems with picture quality.

As some posters already said, it depends on what exactly you are going to save. I prefer jpg, though.

[Aizmov]

Is the TC serious? >.>

For one .jpg is more widely used than .png plus both look just as fine. My current sigs are .jpg, and I've always saved on that format and never had problems with picture quality.

As some posters already said, it depends on what exactly you are going to save. I prefer jpg, though.

I prefer open and patent-free standards :)

[Yurka]

I prefer open and patent-free standards :)

Just what the hell are you talking about? It's not like using one format or the other is gonna cost you anything.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

[Aizmov]

Just what the hell are you talking about? It's not like using one format or the other is gonna cost you anything.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

the use of patented compression techniques in a lot of file formats without paying licensing fees is illegal, which means if you are going to write a software for image processing you either don't support the format or pay the licensing fee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg#Potential_patent_issues

[PanzerJager]

Stop reviving this long deceased thread..


...




wait a minute.. :confused:

[Daenerys]

I couldn't be bothered even reading this crap.
Same.

I got to the third sentance and I realized they dont know what they're talking about.

[Shirai Ryu Scorpion]

Well sure, JPEG only works for photo's it's not intended for graphic design it'll lower it's resolution. However you can adjust the resolution status unto a high bit color, by adjusting the Hue/Contrast/Tranceparency levels.

PNG. Automatically, submits the graphics design as "Save As", but it'll not progress if you submit it into the Photobucket address system it supports only JPEG (etc) only.