Originally Posted by ch_123
TwoCables - on a slightly unrelated note, the last I checked, PNGs are ridiculously big, and you can't really tell the quality difference if you save the JPG at high quality.
twocables - on a slightly unrelated note, since when were PNGs smaller than JPG?
I really wish you would have just asked me in a private message instead.
But, read it again: it doesn't say that saving a screenshot as a .PNG produces a smaller file size than a .JPG. All it says is that you get a much
higher quality (practically lossless) while maintaining a small file size
. It doesn't say smaller
; it just says SMALL.
Does that mean that saving it as a .PNG instead of a .JPG results in a smaller file size? I mean damn, if it does then I will change it. But from what I can see, it does not say that. Were you just looking for a reason to get a reaction out of me? Maybe you were trying to impress everyone by nit-picking my signature? I dunno...
But hey, I'll humor you. Why not? As it stands, we have too many people posting screenshots as .JPGs, and the quality is so bad that there are times where it's difficult to read certain things, and difficult to tell what I'm looking at when it comes to the smaller things in the picture. This is even worse when they re-size the image (before posting it, that is) down to an impractical size for the quality that .JPG produces. It's way too fuzzy. But now if such user re-sized images were .PNGs, then it wouldn't matter as much. Hell, it probably wouldn't matter at all.
I've even had times where I tell the person that it's too fuzzy. So what do they do? They take another screenshot using the 24-bit bitmap format. Worse than that, they don't re-size it.
So even though it's lossless and looks perfect, it takes much, much, much longer to download. But a .PNG looks practically identical and has a fraction of the file size.
There. May I go now?Edited by TwoCables - 9/21/10 at 2:43pm