• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

poll: do you use .png's? (graphic artists and web designers specifically)

Yes, because in many cases .png has great advantages over jpg and gif.

What kind of numbskull is telling you to not use png?
 
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Yes, because in many cases .png has great advantages over jpg and gif.

What kind of numbskull is telling you to not use png?
Click to expand...

the teacher of my multimedia class.

edit: erm multimedia as in: webdesign (css only cause he won't teach us anything else... i guess everything else is a waste...) and director

he told me not to use them because older browsers don't support png's, iirc those same browsers wouldn't support css. maybe i'm wrong though 😉
 
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
They take up a lot of space compared to JPG.
Click to expand...

my webserver has a lot of space 😉 and an ungodly amount of bandwidth, thus i could care less of the size. personally i'm all for quality, i would rather have a large site with quality graphics opposed to a small one with cruddy looking graphics
 
Could someone outline the advantages of PNG other than generally very subtle and more or less unnoticeable quality preservation?
 
Originally posted by: stev0
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
They take up a lot of space compared to JPG.
Click to expand...

my webserver has a lot of space 😉 and an ungodly amount of bandwidth, thus i could care less of the size. personally i'm all for quality, i would rather have a large site with quality graphics opposed to a small one with cruddy looking graphics
Click to expand...
personally if the content of the site doesn't make high image quality a necessity--i'd opt for faster page loads.


-Case
 
Originally posted by: CaseTragedy
Originally posted by: stev0
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
They take up a lot of space compared to JPG.
Click to expand...

my webserver has a lot of space 😉 and an ungodly amount of bandwidth, thus i could care less of the size. personally i'm all for quality, i would rather have a large site with quality graphics opposed to a small one with cruddy looking graphics
Click to expand...
personally if the content of the site doesn't make high image quality a necessity--i'd opt for faster page loads.


-Case
Click to expand...

Its best to use them selectively.
 
Originally posted by: Amorphus
Could someone outline the advantages of PNG other than generally very subtle and more or less unnoticeable quality preservation?
Click to expand...
Typical Usage

I still don't see the point! My digital camera saves in JPG or TIFF. 99.9% of the images I take from the Web are JPG, and the balance are GIF. WTF do we need another format? It doesn't even handle animated images for crying out loud! :disgust:
 
I use them where the fit. IE5-6 on Windows doesnt display transparent PNGs properly (they work on IE on the Mac though).
On my site, I use PNG's for the navigations buttons, but for the screenshot of my desktop, I used GIF (it was like 25kb in PNG, or 8kb in GIF IIRC).

PNGs are lossless compression. Its similar to taking a BMP or other 'uncompressed' image format and Zipping it, no data is lost, but the file is smaller (and of course, files are un-zipped on the fly). PNGs work great on images where one or just few colors are used in a large portion of the image. For example, PNG is great for screenshots of text. I compressed a 1024x768 screenshot of a webpage down to something like 25kb, the same image in jpg was closer to 175kb and you could see lots of compression artifacts. The PNG was as clear as the original. On the other hand, I tried to compress a more complex photo I had taken this past weekend with PNG, the file size was 1.6megs, and only 180kb in JPG.

There are two versions of PNG, 8bit and 24bit. 24bit is of course true color. 8bit is GIF's counterpart. It works along the same lines of just using 256 or fewer colors, but doesnt support animation. I've noticed 8bit PNGs are just a tad smaller then the same image using GIF compression.
 
Depends on the graphic. I use whatever format produces the best appearance and the smallest file size.; sometimes that happens to png, but most of the time I'll use jpg for photos and gif for simple graphics.
 
Originally posted by: jjones
Depends on the graphic. I use whatever format produces the best appearance and the smallest file size.; sometimes that happens to png, but most of the time I'll use jpg for photos and gif for simple graphics.
Click to expand...

same here, there's a lot of people out there on 56k
 
Originally posted by: Amorphus
Could someone outline the advantages of PNG other than generally very subtle and more or less unnoticeable quality preservation?
Click to expand...

The real reason for .png is that it's royalty-free. .gif was/is trying to form an action where they get a cut for each and every .gif.

Å
 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: Amorphus
Could someone outline the advantages of PNG other than generally very subtle and more or less unnoticeable quality preservation?
Click to expand...

The real reason for .png is that it's royalty-free. .gif was/is trying to form an action where they get a cut for each and every .gif.

Å
Click to expand...

In addition, it allows for editing and saving without recompressing the file and introducing more compression artifacts, as jpg would do. You can do this with gif as well, but you're limited to 256 colors.

PNG is great for desktop shots. 😀
 
Originally posted by: stev0
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Yes, because in many cases .png has great advantages over jpg and gif.

What kind of numbskull is telling you to not use png?
Click to expand...

the teacher of my multimedia class.

edit: erm multimedia as in: webdesign (css only cause he won't teach us anything else... i guess everything else is a waste...) and director

he told me not to use them because older browsers don't support png's, iirc those same browsers wouldn't support css. maybe i'm wrong though 😉
Click to expand...
If you need to work with old browsers, you're screwed. Netscape 4? :disgust:
GIFs offer more compatibility, but if you need greater than 256 colors, or are using any CSS, go for PNGs. IE4 (with updates) even supports them. Of course allow the page to work fine w/o images, too.
If you rally need compatibilit, your only opton is straight HTML 3.2 w/ GIFs or JPGs. t's good to make things work on crapp browsers, but you'll pull your hair out getting everything to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top