Journal #7184

make sure you choose the "do not resize" option, and it should preserve the original resolution.

It wouldn't even upload with the original resolution. Probably something to do with the fact it was 2MB.

gah, why would you ever need to upload an image that big anyway?

That won't be very big soon. I mean, TVs are 1080p now, so monitors will probably have a massive resolution jump soon.
Besides, maybe someone would want to use it as a source texture.

are source textures really that big in filesize?

No, source textures converted to a standard image container will be larger though.

Ever heard of a nice little format called JPEG?

Remember to choose the right format for the job. PNG is terrible at stuff like game screenshots or photos. And obviously if you're uploading to the web, you don't need to worry about tiny artifacts that may appear.

Think about the people who don't have access to broadband. jpgs work fine:)

PNG is the format for game screenshots and photos. Lossy formats should only be used when size is a problem. 2MB for an image isn't much of a problem. Although, making it a JPEG is better than down-sizing the PNG.

PNG is the best format when you need lossless screenshots and photos. When creating a texture, that is fine. But when uploading one to the internet, you almost never need a lossless format. JPEG is an almost non-existent drop in quality for a significant drop in size. A 200kb JPEG will download ten times faster than a 2MB PNG, and the quality difference will not be noticeable under normal circumstances. To recommend that people use PNG to upload photos on the internet is utter madness.

"When creating a texture, that is fine. But when uploading one to the internet, you almost never need a lossless format."
You almost never need to upload anything. But more importantly, you almost never need a lossy image format.

"A 200kb JPEG will download ten times faster than a 2MB PNG"
A 2-seconds load time for an image is unnoticeable when it's accompanied by other content (the rest of the website).

"the quality difference will not be noticeable under normal circumstances"
That depends on the quality setting used when encoding the image. In most JPEGs on the web, it is very noticeable. JPEG fucks up text and lines. Those who don't notice the JPEG artifacts don't care but those who notice certainly do. Someone wanting to reuse the image (for example by making it a part of another image or by using it as a texture in a game) would not want a JPEG.

"To recommend that people use PNG to upload photos on the internet is utter madness."
You've only provided one reason for using JPEG instead of PNG and it's largely irrelevant in the 21st century.

I'm talking about photos and game screenshots here. The example you used is a web graphic containing lots of block colours and some text. This is what PNG is optimised for. It would be silly to use JPEG for a graphic like that.

It's all about using the right format for the right job. There is no "one format to rule them all", and there probably never will be. To suggest otherwise is just plain ignorance. Of course JPEG artifacts are noticeable in web graphics, just as poor PNG compression is noticeable in a photograph.

A 2 second download for some will be a two minute download for others. I know that I cannot download 2MB in two seconds (more like 5 seconds at maximum speed - double that for a slower server), and my internet is considered fast for my country. We don't all live in Europe.

JeffMOD's image may contain text and lines, but it is mostly a game screenshot. It can be saved as a JPEG at 95% quality to a file six times smaller, with no visible degradation in the text or any other part of the image. Considering that the website he uploaded the image to only allows files up to a maximum size, I would say that image size is far more important to most people than an insignificant amount of lossy encoding.

JPEG artifacts are noticeable in photos and screenshots too. As an example, let's take the latest JPEG from your journals:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3592/oldgames.jpg

Also, if you're on a slow connection, while an interlaced PNG is loading you'll see the essence of the image.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Adam7_make_awesome_face.gif

Actually, that's the camera's fault. Bad example. Besides, saving that image as a PNG results in an image that is over 8 times the size of the JPEG. That's a terrible trade-off.

I don't think it is. And I have been and sometimes am on slow connections.

I think you're being quite impractical. It's all about using the right tool for the job. You wouldn't use a spoon to eat spaghetti if you had a fork available. But let's just agree to disagree.

Also, Changing your images to links because that animation is annoying me.

That looks more like a JPG picture taken at less then 1% quality then a good representation of JPG to be honest.

Wait, you mean saving the image in that JPEG file as a PNG? That'd be pointless as it's already been degraded by the JPEG encoder.

Edit: PB just changed his post using admin hax. you haxx0r

Quick quiz! Tell which is which without checking the url!

Actually, give me a second! I shall size these down first!

PNG
JPEG

Oh my god! One has a TWO PIXEL ARTIFACT?! THE FUCKING HORROR!

The artifacting is SO BAD, THAT I SIMPLY AM UNABLE TO READ THE TEXT!

PNG
JPEG

You made it too obvious though; the colours in the second image are different, probably because it was given a different colour profile upon conversion.

I just resaved through paint.net, jpeg got washed out for some reason.

what was the quality export settings? did you leave it default at like.. 94%?

I think default is 90%.

JPG 95% is pretty good, while PNG is lossless.

Another good format is JP2, but no one uses it :/

File size is not irrelevant. I browse a lot using my phone, which is on a limited (and often slow) data connection, for exemple.

That is why we have thumbnails and Adam7.

Think of the people who don't have great (or even good) internet connections.

That is why we have thumbnails and Adam7.