I've noticed a lot of files that don't need to be .pngs that are .pngs recently. There seems to be some sort of a "ooh, .jpgs have a lower quality" kind of feel, but I notice no difference (most ----- photographs and website graphics are .jpgs) and .pngs have a much larger file size. The case FOR .pngs is that they support transparency. With a .jpg, you can make your image ripproof AND " transparent" in one shot. Take your transparent image (make sure you have an empty background layer), print screen of your website or forum's signature space (or the background color you want), use the eyedropper and paintbucket tool and you have your finished piece. This rip-proofs your image because if someone tries to post it on another site, the background will be completely different and make the signature look horrible. I did this with my fuzzler pile in my signature. So, as of now, I find .jpgs much more useful for graphic designs. What's your opinion? (Why is another word for master that rhymes with Congressional censored?)
Png, because no one likes looking at a tutorials in jpg format. But seriously, Png because it has higher quality, and it makes tutorials easter to read.
Had, Your second signature is 103.37 KB. My first sig is 50.51 KB at .jpg 12. So, talking numbers .pngs take longer to load.
My second signature has alot of stuff in it, so the file size is going to be bigger. But the load times doesn't bother me since they only take like half a second to show up.
.PNG and .JPG are very similar, yes. But, PNG offers high qaulity, and isn't as blurry and such. .PNG has my vote because it is less blurry, and offers more of a "impact" to the sig. Transparent pixels are fine to use, but why should others rip your creation? <_< I just find that to be... low. It really is. If this hasn't helped, nor worsen the conversation, then please, carry on without me
That's because they're in your cache. Nobody got 2007 credits in 2007 =P And I'm going to do an experiment. I'll be right back.
- 5.172 seconds load time - 7.797 seconds load time Okay, the top is a .jpg and the bottom is a .png. I've never seen them online before so they aren't in my cache. I opened them up in two different tabs, clicked back and forth between them, and found no difference in quality. Only in file size.
I just use .jpg on things like forum signatures, but if I'm rendering an image in 3ds Max/Maya/Zbrush or making a graphic which I want to impress people with or not risk losing any tiny details (without using .bmp of course)...I go with .png.
i hate the word noob, but this is a noob topic png, although it may have a split second longer loading time, it has higher quality...... but if you are talking about non-graphic related pics, then jpg....its more widely supported and sites are just now accepting png as a file type...... graphics wise, png is the better of the 2 PNG= Portable Network Graphics (best when dealing with highly graphic related images) JPEG= Joint Photographic Experts Group (best for standard pictures) and btw.....neither one is faster than the other, there is more than one variable to consider when dealing with size, and they are as follows 1. if made in photoshop, how many layers is the image 2. what is the picture resolution (even though the web only supports 72....the picture will still have a larger size) 3. again, with photoshop, did you flatten the image before saving as an image file, as this will reduce the image size 4. have to consider memory and picture order.....if the picture isnt already in your temp int files (or cache) then it will take longer than one that is not in your temp, also the file that the computer loads first will more than likely come a split second before the next image (even though most conversions are rollover) 5. jpeg has a variety of settings, 1-12 and if you want multiple scans or w/e...... this is a great topic.....have fun with it :mellow:
Great noob topic. Anyway, check out my experiment above with quality. Both images are exactly the same. Feel free to align them in two different tabs and switch between the two. No change in quality at all. Hadouken, go ahead and make your own two graphics.
read b4 replying........the internet only displays 72px on images.........higher resolution or not, there is a difference when compared outside of the net......also depends on the factors i said already.......even if the jpg and png were saved at the same time.....they can never be the same image quality....one is for pics, one is for graphics...deal with it and move on with life
So if it only displays 72px and .jpg and .png both display the same colors, what's the difference besides file size? Oh, and just so you know, that was a random comment. I didn't read your post at all. That's why I quoted it.
