• 0

What's so good about PNGs?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
If a picture is compressed, isn't that by definition a loss format.

The big reason is the transparency

No, JPEGs use lossy compression (picture quality is lost), while (24bit) PNGs are exactly the same as the source picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
If a picture is compressed, isn't that by definition a loss format.

No!

Does the zip/rar format loss data? No!

I don't know how it works, but it is lossless, and supports more colors than the eye can see!

PNG was designed by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) to replace the GIF (inventeed by Compuserve, with royalites by programs that can write them), except that browser support isn't that great.

But it doesn't support animation. (A varient known as MNG does. But its rare, and only Mozilla supports it natively.)

PNG is my format of choice for saved images I've scanned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

PNG is easier to pronounce. JPG/JPEG...that's kind hard to say. and GIF. people don't know how to pronounce it. it's either "jiff" or "giff" when you say it. but PNG....there's pretty much only one way to say it.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for the replys, I assume there might be some more.

But under the signature guidelines

As for content considered inappropriate:

Too large, or file size exceeds recommended size NO PNG's please

Or is that outdated rule, some sigs in this thread are PNGs.

If I converted all my JPGs to PNG would I loose anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
MSIE doesn't support it . . . :angry:

What are they waiting for . . . :angry:

IE does support PNG - maybe not to the full extent you would like. But a PNG file will be displayed in IE, you may not get the EXACT picture/quality the author of the picture intended. But then again - this is always highly unlikely anyway, since most people are running at very low color depths and resolutions. Then if you take into account the different monitors, etc.. I highly doubt that the MAJORITY of people are seeing any picture format in its true form.

But you will get a picture, so you need to reword your complaint. If you added "FULL" support of the format and all of its power, then you would be correct :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If the creator/s of the format would be believed, they intended GIF to be read as jif.

Some sites which claim jif is the "correct" pronunciation follow:

"How to Pronounce GIF and Linux", http://www.skizzers.org/andy/stuff/gif/gif.html

"The GIF Pronounciation page", http://www.holt.org/pronounce.html

I find the view expressed by a "Erik J. Macki" on "The GIF Pronounciation page" a rather logical explanation.

Granted this would not bring a definitive end to the debate, I am just inclined to accept what the creator/s says is the way to pronounce it.

Anyway, to each his own I say. "gif" or "jif", it depends on your take on the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
MSIE doesn't support it . . .  :angry:

What are they waiting for . . .  :angry:

IE does support PNG - maybe not to the full extent you would like. But a PNG file will be displayed in IE, you may not get the EXACT picture/quality the author of the picture intended. But then again - this is always highly unlikely anyway, since most people are running at very low color depths and resolutions. Then if you take into account the different monitors, etc.. I highly doubt that the MAJORITY of people are seeing any picture format in its true form.

But you will get a picture, so you need to reword your complaint. If you added "FULL" support of the format and all of its power, then you would be correct :)

Can't edit my post.

You are right.

FULL support of the format and all of its power, exactly valid point, thx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
it would be pointless to do so, thats like converting a 128k mp3 to a 256k mp3 :rolleyes:

No, it wouldn't be useless. You'd be supporting a new, open, superior format WITHOUT LOSING A THING. Since PNG is lossless, the image quality of the PNG will be as good as the JPG was. No less :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.