OSDev.org

NotTheCHEAT wrote: It happened at bonafide OS dev once..

More than once actually....and I unfortantly know who did it too the second time.

I turned them in but nothing was ever done about it. Now the same PITA was being a typical PITA and trying to take down my server because i had a forum he didnt like.

NotTheCHEAT wrote: Yes, I know about the artifacts. I couldn't get rid of those, so that's how it is. You can see what everything says, right?

You should've just saved it as a GIF.

StrangeQuark wrote:

NotTheCHEAT wrote: Yes, I know about the artifacts. I couldn't get rid of those, so that's how it is. You can see what everything says, right?

You should've just saved it as a GIF.

A PNG would do quite well too...

Isn't png a vector format? In which case that would be a desired format to use.

No, PNG is a lossless bitmap format capable of storing anything from greyscale to 24bit truecolor imagery with good compression (and alphachannel support). Created as patent-free successor for GIF.

The JPG resulted in the smallest file, so I used it. It's readable, so why use extra space?

You know Dark Hack, or a different guy?

NotTheCHEAT wrote: The JPG resulted in the smallest file, so I used it. It's readable, so why use extra space?

You know Dark Hack, or a different guy?

Well... because it's the wrong choice and will lead to discussions on why you would make such a weird choice. Causing a lot more traffic than you would've had when you'd take PNG off the bat.

JPG is smaller because it looks bad. Storing your file in 1/4th the resolution is also bad for the looks, why not do that instead?

Stupid me, that's what I meant regarding PNG - lossless

Don't know what I was thinking.

@Candy: why do you say it's the wrong choice? That's an opinion, not a fact. And it's completely subjective. I happen to prefer JPG, mainly because some older systems don't support PNG, and besides, JPG is smaller. So what if the quality is bad? You can tell what it says, right?

Actually, Jpeg's only smaller for bigger pics, especially if they have lots of curves. Png's smaller for smaller pics, especially if they have lots of straight lines.

There's a program somewhere called pngcrush that can usually get a png even smaller. I dunno if you'll get better than your jpeg though. The image is rather picture-like anyway.

I've heard (and use) Pngout for that, which's available here (for free)

NotTheCHEAT wrote: @Candy: why do you say it's the wrong choice? That's an opinion, not a fact. And it's completely subjective.

I disagree. GIF, BMP and PNG have been designed for bitmapped graphics, while JPEG has been designed for true-color photo(realistic) imagery. JPEG generates artifacts which, by the nature of the JPEG algorithm, are not very apparent in photo(realistic) pictures, but is a pain in the a... erm... eye when JPEG is applied to high-contrast bitmaps.

Of course you can use a truck to fetch a pizza. But it's the wrong choice if you also have a car you could drive.

If your PNG of a GUI screenshot is larger than your JPEG, you simply didn't apply the correct options - blame your graphics tool, not the format. For testing, I just snapshotted the browser window I was typing in (1280x1024): the PNG was 51k. A JPEG compressed to this size... you wouldn't want to see. (Unintelligible.)

NotTheCHEAT wrote: @Candy: why do you say it's the wrong choice? That's an opinion, not a fact. And it's completely subjective. I happen to prefer JPG, mainly because some older systems don't support PNG, and besides, JPG is smaller. So what if the quality is bad? You can tell what it says, right?

The only systems that don't support PNG at this moment are those before 1998 (IE, more than 7 years old with no recent software) or Internet Explorer (which just plain annoyingly only supported it from v5 or v6 on, and then still in a bad sort of way).

JPG isn't smaller unless you totally wreck the graphical quality, whereas you could also destroy the graphical quality with PNG and get small files.

JPG was designed by people analysing photo's in order to devise some method of compressing them without big artifacts. PNG was devised by people analysing computer images in order to devise some method of compressing them without losing quality. Using JPG for a computer-generated image is plain misplaced.

Candy wrote: ...whereas you could also destroy the graphical quality with PNG and get small files.

Huh?

Is there some lossy kind of PNG, too?