OSDev.org

Solar wrote:

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?

sort of. Just make the image 1/4th of the size and then store that. It wrecks the graphical quality and gives you smaller files, same with JPG.

You could make a lossy kind of PNG by compressing the palette first and occasionally skipping a pixel, but that counterpoints the entire point of PNG.

Maybe the reason I used JPG is because the only type of image software I have is mspaint. I'm at school, and I obviously don't have root priveleges, which would allow me to install imaging software worth talking about. And once again, in this case, JPG cam out smaller.

Now PNG is better in general, I agree. But in this case, with such a trivial picture as that, why sacrifice size for quality?

This is kind of a small thing to attack NotTheCHEAT for...

He made it a jpeg, so? Does it matter about small artifacts and stuff like that?

If you really wanted, why not start a new thread called "What's the best Image Format" or something???

Just a thought

My point exactly