https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
Why have you not joined the PNG master race, /g/
>>51485836
Because filesize of a photograph would be unnecessary large compared to a lossless JPG. PNG is for computer generated graphics that don't have too many different colors.
>>51485892
>lossless JPG
no
>thinking he's the first person to appreciate png and that we're all just late to the party
you're the retard here, OP.
>>51485892
>>51485899
there is a lossless variant of jpeg, but no common decoder supports it, it's not the same as "100" quality
>>51485836
>3KB
>>51485870
>5KB
>>51485836
Needsmorejpg.com
>>51485913
i didn't say it was more suitable for that content
but jpeg can do better than pictured quality-wise
OP, you are atleast 12 years late to the party.
Suicide is advised.
>>51485913
There.
>>51485836
Diference is as small as it does not matter. But i try to use CSS for shadows on diferent elements. if possible... Fighting them pesky kilobytes.
I will if you can post a 1080p wallpaper in PNG format OP.
>>51486065
get rekt
>>51486065
Please
>>51486065
>>51486089
>>51486140
Can you do it to one that isn't already robbed of quality?
.png is the .flac of image formats
>>51486153
I could if the PNG encoder of the apps i used wasn't shit.
But that sharp noise looks good
>those people who save photos (including screenshots of sports and TV shows) as PNG
>>51486177
"...I could if..."
"My apps fault...not jpeg format"
kek. I didn't think so.
>>51486186
You seem upset
>he doesn't use .bmp for his images
Stay pleb
>>51486177
Wrong again. You're the one that just lost your argument.
>>51486220
I meant this for this guy >>51486210
But I guess it does apply to so you so anyways...
>>51486161
>very useful for archiving and editing, but completely unnecessary for listening
That's about right.
>>51486161
Try printing them on a large format
>inb4 .jpg/.gif/or .swf
>>51486236
He won't comprehend. His logic is this....
"The pictures look fine on my screen in this resolution as jpeg, therefore on any other hard ware, trying to accomplish anything else jpeg is sufficient."
>>51486236
>print media
>2015
>>51486105
799kb,.. kek
>>51486260
>2015
>Not knowing how many things are printed for commercial businesses every single day.
>want to upload png/jpg comparison
>file too large
Fuck this gay image board
>>51486260
>being a jobless neet
>>51486267
of course i know that. doesn't mean i don't think print media is depracted and harmful to the environment. we got ebook readers and tablets for a reason
>>51486260
> 2015
> Halo memes
>>51486292
not the same anon
but
>halo memes
its memeout memes
stop trying to be ironic sperglord
>>51486302
fuck your file converting ass
>>51486161
Okay I'll bite.
- PNG isn't uncompressed.
- You can't claim the left elephant is an 803 KB png when the full image is only a 370 KB png.
Webp when
>>51486161
Enjoy you're lack of transparency fgt.
because svg is better
I don't use lossy compression for anything that I can source lossless. I also don't intend to, because I have ample storage space as it is.
If I post anything online, or give anything to someone else though, I consider compression depending on the destination.
>all those retards arguing about PNG vs JPEG
it's pretty simple:
PNG for things with clear edges, large areas of the same color, text, logos and if you need transparency
JPEG for more complex, realistic things like photos or screenshots of most games - but only if you really need to bring the file size down (like for the web).
for long-term storage of photos, keep the RAW. HDDs are cheap.
>>51486153
>Sharpening noise
Absolutely disgusting
>>51486302
>Weights 12x times more
>Has artifacts
JPEG is truly disgusting
>>51487002
No, its far more simple
PNG is for everything
JPEG is for poorfags who cry about a couple of MBs
>>51487249
>>51487234
>>51487210
Why dont we use BMP then?
Its super easy to implement and no compression bullshit either?
>>51487271
BMP can't into transparency and BMP doesn't compress unlike PNG.
Also last time i checked it was limited to 24bits of colours, PNG supports 32-bits
PNG > BMP for everything.
>>51487271
bmp is a proprietary format, use ppm instead
>>51487210
>jpeg requires shit quality pics to work right
>fuck good quality pics
>>51486286
>harmful to the environment
>the trees used for paper grow faster than the human body does and can be replaced easily, and is easy to recycle, going through several generations in an average human generation
Yeah, na, fuck off.
Paper is HARMLESS to the environment. In fact, it AIDS it.
The thing most damaging is the wood-work industry and retards building houses out of fucking wood and not stone.
GG Americunts. No wonder your houses get blown away in slight winds.
You are retarded if you don't recognise that both have their place.
>storage/archival, working files, offline use
PNG, etc
>shit that's already compressed, online use
JPEG, etc
Anyone who refuses to use both (but each where it is most appropriate) is retarded.
>>51487811
>online use
t. Apple employee
>>51487811
Thing is very simply some idiots just don't understand compression and algorithms.
More detail = more data needed to recreate image
Some images can lose detail and still look good and some can't.
already have joined, ladm8
>>51485836
I'm Australian and need to save my bandwidth
>>51487837
Wha?
I've never even owned an apple product.
I was primarily talking about shit like photographs. If I was to try and post an uncompressed photograph from my camera, I'd very quickly find that 4chan doesn't support 150MiB TIFFs.
>>51486065
>>51487900
Late to the party bro, now this one >>51486153
>inb4 muh app can't do it, not jpegs fault...again
>tfw 4chan still doesn't support webp.
>>51487920
converting from a lossy to a lossless format is a sin.
>>51487900
My comrade
Remember to never cross a unions picket line
>>51487991
It's the only semi-reasonable way to prove it since I doubt he's going to go get a source file in .png to convert to .jpeg so he can prove to himself just why .jpeg is better than .png for certain things.
>>51487487
>Post processing crap
>Good quality
yeah nah
>>51487974
>webp
nothing supports that shit, not even photoshop.
>>51488463
doesn't change the fact that it's awesome.
>>51488476
>it's awesome
not really.
Also, (unrelated):
Why does webm RAPE the red channel so much? It's fucking horrific.
>>51488496
>WebP is a new image format that provides lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs. WebP lossy images are 25-34% smaller in size compared to JPEG images at equivalent SSIM index. WebP supports lossless transparency (also known as alpha channel) with just 22% additional bytes. Transparency is also supported with lossy compression and typically provides 3x smaller file sizes compared to PNG when lossy compression is acceptable for the red/green/blue color channels.
Webmasters and web developers can use the WebP image format to create smaller and richer images that can help make the web faster.
>not awesome
>>51488476
>lossy crap
it's shit
inb4 muh lossless mode.
it's still inferior in comparison to PNG.
>>51488526
>WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs
But that's false, there was a thread here in /g/ where a tripfag was trying to prove that crap and everyone destroyed his claims with optimize PNGs.
>>51488526
>2015
>Caring about image sizes
maybe if you live in a 3rd world shithole like the USA where people still have bandwidth caps and shit tier speeds. I'd rather live in a world where the internet is not full of images with compression artifacts.
>>51488562
>tfw we need class in primary school to teach kids how to upload pictures to facebook in appropriate format
>>51488526
>WebP
>not FLIF
on a sidenote: https://www.andrewmunsell.com/blog/png-vs-webp/
there seem to be actual uses for webp
>>51488605
it doesn't matter. Facebook rapes any and all images, no matter the file format.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPjkaJRGP6g
>>51487900
daily reminder to optimize your .PNGs
>>51488828
How?
>>51488898
i personally like trimage because it's convenient. there are other ways though.
>>51488932
>trimage
http://trimage.org/
Fugggg
>>51488945
>using non-free OS
OptiPNG should also work.
>>51488981
>non-free OS
Windows 7 is free on thepiratebay mate
>OptiPNG
thanks
>>51489022
>Windows 7 is free on thepiratebay mate
is this b8 or are you just new? free-software is free as in freedom, not as in price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
>>51489022
pngcrush is another one
>>51489052
dude I know lmao, was just joking.
Also, can someone tell me why Photoshop doesn't have something like OptiPNG/Rimage? Why the fuck doesn't photoshop optimize PNGs?
>>51489096
well you can optimize PNGs with PS, GIMP, Krita etc. but you need to know what you are doing (reducing channels, remove exif, change color format...)
enabling this by default could potentially remove stuff you wanted to use at another time. (unfinished alpha-channel with some special settings for example)
>>51488828
>PNG files so fucking huge you need to run it through a different application to save 200 kilobytes.
>>51489094
>>51489022
Just tested the same file with PNGcrush and OptiPNG
OptiPNG got it ~100KB smaller than PNGcrush.
>>51489178
you know that these programs do the same with jpeg right? also for a lot of things png files are actually smaller.
>>51489199
lol, opening the same PNG in photoshop and using "Save for web> PNG-24 (with default settings)" resulted in the same file size as OptiPNG
>>51489199
Yeah optipng is the one I use, it achieves good results even with the default settings.
>>51488946
>>51489199
>>51489235
>cont.
I just realized, in photoshop, "save for web>PNG-24", if I choose to "convert to sRGB", it gets the same size as PNGcrush. So now we know why there was a difference in size. I'll keep OptiPNG just in case, but I think I won't be needing it if I get the same size from Photoshop's save for web exporter.
>>51489277
well optiPNG, PNGcrush and trimage can optimize a lot of files at once.
>>51489313
Can any of them count colors?
/gd/ here
JPG for images with lots of detail
PNG images for large blocks of colour
>>51486324
yea now that you mention it I dont believe the creator of that image even inserted two different file format elephant pictures. I bet he opened up one jpg of an elephant, moved it to one side, copy and pasted it, and moved it to the other side then exported it all as a ".png"
>>51489399
color isnt spelled with a 'u' so I dont believe you.
png for everything.
>>51489576
>>51485836
I don't see the difference?
>>51486089
>that one dipshit who saves a 500kb jpg as a 4mb png
>>51486161
.png=/=.raw
>>51485836
As a web devver I had a very large image to be used for a background and I preferred png because of how lossless it was compared to jpg. But when you're talking about a 2000 by 2000 + image for a background on a website you're talking the difference between a 2mb and a 500kb file. I submitted a website to my superior with the 2mb png and got screamed at saying: "At what point do you think it's appropriate to have a 2 megabyte file size in the background?"
When he said it like that it made me realize the absolute necessity of .jpg compression.
>>51490526
Neither is flac.
>>51490918
what kind of image was that? isn't everything flat nowadays anyway?
>>51490918
even 500k for a background image is pretty dumb in most cases
>>51485892
Jpeg is a compressed image fornat, calling it lossless is like saying no one died in the holocaust
>>51486143
That's one godawful png.
>>51491529
So png is uncompressed now?
What do you /g/uys think about FLIF (Free Lossless Image Format)?
http://flif.info/
i compressed this
why the fuck would I use .png when I can use .jpg instead? And look at that filesize. Only 9kb, suck on that png
>>51491733
Compare to the original .png
200+ kilobytes, absolutely wasteful. PNGfags should be ashamed of themselves.
>>51490918
this has to be a fucking bait. Fuck you and that fucking whore implemeting jquery, bootstrap and 3 other js library for muh estetic.
Mobile user with data cap.
>>51488633
Who is that semen demon?
>>51491695
interesting, stable release when?
>>51491901
No idea, but I really do hope that it catches on.
>>51491810
Kumi Yagami
>>51486161
Except both sides have evidence of jpeg artifacts. Look at the blocky formations in the sky. Image is transcoded.
>>51488828
I optimized your png
>>51491994
which program/settings?
>>51485836
>using png
>not dng
Get out.
>>51491994
I optimized your png
>>51492030
>Not RAW
>>51492030
>>51492056
DNG = RAW repackaged by Adobe.
>>51491994
>3 colors
>look guise its 42kb
No shit try a full picture with varying colors.
>>51492030
>>51492065
jpg looks better
>>51492056
dng is raw you cunt.
>>51491994
I optimized your png
>>51492051 = me
tried PNG instead of GIF, achieved even smaller size
>>51492065
DNG is like 60 fps it makes it look too real and breaks the illusion of being a photograph. I prefer jpeg.
>>51492075
>No shit try a full picture with varying colors.
why? to show that different formats have different usecases?
>>51489399
Literally the only person who understands the difference in this thread.
Jpeg: better for compressing large colour palettes, usually photographic images
Png-8: better for compressing images with small colour palettes and transparency like most digitally-created graphics
Png-24: lossless image format with full 255 levels of opacity
>>51492097
I optimized your optimization of an optimization of an optimized png
>>51492122
>>51492051
>using a proprietary format
>>51492173
my optimization made it bigger
shrink this as much as you can without loosing quality
Can you?
>>51492247
Nope...
>>51492238
>>51492238
>save as png
>11mb
png is superior for every use guys!!
>>51492298
Why is it a completely different color?
where can one get wallpapers in .png format?
>>51492238
noisy shit: jpeg is superior
>>51492325
Nigger didnt setup his photoshop color profiles properly.
>>51492065
>>51492030
Can my iPhone 6 do this?
>>51492364
what do you use to compress?
>>51492367
no, for some reason (in save for web) checking "convert to sRGB" fucks the image up in chrome, but displays fine in firefox.
>>51492378
Photoshop CS6
>>51492304
4.85 here.
>>51492381
>>51492367
https://viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift
>>51485836
>Png
>Not crunched Chroma-subsampled DXT
Shiggy
>>51492238
>Convert to Webp @35% quality
>decent enough
>177kb
>can't fucking open the image with chrome or firefox or honeyview
>only xnview
fuck this shit.
>>51485985
You encoded the colors on 8 bits in the png you motherfucker.
>>51486264
okay, so what changed? how does one into lossless png compression?
>>51492122
>>51492173
>>51492196
okay, do why doesn't the optimizer make multiple passes to begin with?
>>51485985
so how do you figure the most efficient color depth, or are you just pointing out that you can see the difference?
>>51486161
Who uses png for photos?
>>51493279
I'm >>51492173 and I've done only 1 pass.
>>51485923
Funny how the watermark that site puts on it's image can't even be read at all because of the compression.
>>51486161
Right is transcoded from jpg.
This image is fucking stupid.
>>51485836
Use JPG for photos.
>>51485836
Have you noticed your retardness yet OP?
>>51487846
Those aren't jpeg artifacts, you just downscaled it.
>PNG
>Not TIFF mustard race
>>51492196
anyone somehow get it smaller?
>>51496236
how did you pull of that filesize?
>>51496236
I am astonished. What new kind of wizadry is this?
>>51485836
Both formats have their purposes. JPEG stumbles at things PNG excels at and vice versa.
>>51496236
>>51496253
>>51496262
Saved as png8 in photoshop, then ran it though tinypng.
It's actually slightly lossy, I had to delete a grey color that was used for smoothing.
>>51496236
Shaved off a few KB without killing off the black area like >>51496312 did
>>51496363
we need to get it smaller
compress this even more if you can
>>51487296
>BMP can't into transparency
32-bit BMP does actually exist and is spec compliant.
>>51496564
yeah, lossless :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCgCo
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo1.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform http://unix4lyfe.org/dct/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_curve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel–Ziv–Markov_chain_algorithm
Get working.
>>51496564
2 KB good enough for you?
>>51496601
i want to go deeper
>>51485923
>>51496600
I don't want to reinvent daala anon.
>>51496641
that's the joke
>>51485923
>needs more watermark
>>51496636
>>51496670
>7kb
can we go lower?
>>51496687
>>51496670
>>51496687
>>51496726
sheeeiit
>>51496670
4.3 KB, without resizing like >>51496726
pretty happy with this considering the res
>>51496809
go deeper
>>51496825
Zoomed all the way in it looks like dog crap though. Let me optimize it further for you and make it look even dog crappier.
>>51496907
>>51496966
well the thumbnail looks ok.
>>51492196
I optimized your image.
cant post svg \/
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=JDA69RNv
>>51498022
>using pastebin for svg
>browser shows it as text because the mime type says it is
kek
