<!--QuoteBegin-Trex2004+May 31 2004, 05:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trex2004 @ May 31 2004, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i tihnk this one really sucks and its verry low quality dunno <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The world would be a better place if people learned when to use .gifs and when to use .jpg compression. Something like this would make a very small .gif, with no loss in quality.
wrong forum again <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
how too hold? easy?? why r those holes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> and why wrong forum..?
In goes in the concept and request forum <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Try putting a different background in to what the gun looks like, people can see the holes better
The advantage of JPEG is that even with full compression it still isnt usually much bigger than GIF. For something like this JPEG compared to GIF size would probably be roughly the same...JPEG would probably be smaller.
<!--QuoteBegin-TheUdderOne+May 31 2004, 09:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheUdderOne @ May 31 2004, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The advantage of JPEG is that even with full compression it still isnt usually much bigger than GIF. For something like this JPEG compared to GIF size would probably be roughly the same...JPEG would probably be smaller.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Excuse me while I make like I'm twelve.
Ahaahahaha. nub.
Compare and contrast with this random collection of lines (because who could be bothered spending any real time with this?)
On the left, an exactly-like-the-original .gif version, clocking in at a whopping 2.3kb. On the right a maximum-compression jpeg, which is ugly as all hell and indistinct in some areas thanks to all the jpeg artifacts, clocking in at 3.5kb.
GIF => good for graphics JPG => good for photos PNG => pwns both but lacks support (browsers and stuff) <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CaptainPanaka+May 31 2004, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CaptainPanaka @ May 31 2004, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> GIF => good for graphics JPG => good for photos PNG => pwns both but lacks support (browsers and stuff) <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, PNG has *basic* support in pretty much all modern browsers. The problem comes when you try to use the alpha transparency. Mozilla and Firefox show them fine (not sure about opera), but IE still doesn't support it unless you include a javascript "hack" on the page you're displaying PNGs.
Besides that, either use PNG, or if your image only has a low number of colours (like this does....2-8 colours at most, depending on the program and tools used), then use gif. If it's like a photo, then use jpg.
Luckily none of my pictures that are PNG have alpha transparencies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> my IE shows them just fine
Mate, there is no way that is a maximum compression JPEG. Unless u used summat really really shite to compress it.
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die.
GIF => Good for flat colour fields JPEG => Good PNG => oh no LZW is copyrighted....make a new file format
<!--QuoteBegin-TheUdderOne+Jun 1 2004, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheUdderOne @ Jun 1 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mate, there is no way that is a maximum compression JPEG. Unless u used summat really really shite to compress it.
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's on about file size. Max quality for that image would be about 20kb...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the right a <b>maximum-compression jpeg</b>, which is ugly as all hell and indistinct in some areas thanks to all the jpeg artifacts<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-TheUdderOne+Jun 1 2004, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheUdderOne @ Jun 1 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mate, there is no way that is a maximum compression JPEG. Unless u used summat really really shite to compress it.
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to be confused about max compression and max quality. Also, you appear to be confused about how to read.
Maximum compression is lowest quality.
When I said "an image like this" at the very begining, I meant an image with limited palette and large flat areas. I am not debating whether a more complex image would be more suuited to jpeg - I am merely proceeding with my campaign to enlighten people about when to use .gif compression, for the sake of the intarnet!1
I am still right, and you sir can join the ranks of those who are wrong. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
The world would be a better place if people learned when to use .gifs and when to use .jpg compression. Something like this would make a very small .gif, with no loss in quality.
look at the top people!
and why wrong forum..?
In goes in the concept and request forum <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Try putting a different background in to what the gun looks like, people can see the holes better
whats a vanu?
Excuse me while I make like I'm twelve.
Ahaahahaha. nub.
Compare and contrast with this random collection of lines (because who could be bothered spending any real time with this?)
On the left, an exactly-like-the-original .gif version, clocking in at a whopping 2.3kb. On the right a maximum-compression jpeg, which is ugly as all hell and indistinct in some areas thanks to all the jpeg artifacts, clocking in at 3.5kb.
<img src='http://www.tangledslinky.org/images/gifversion.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <img src='http://www.tangledslinky.org/images/jpgversion.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
You are wrong, sir.
i always find that gifs make the image look horrible and jpgs (while giving a horrible outline) make it look better....
JPG => good for photos
PNG => pwns both but lacks support (browsers and stuff) <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
JPG => good for photos
PNG => pwns both but lacks support (browsers and stuff) <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, PNG has *basic* support in pretty much all modern browsers. The problem comes when you try to use the alpha transparency. Mozilla and Firefox show them fine (not sure about opera), but IE still doesn't support it unless you include a javascript "hack" on the page you're displaying PNGs.
Besides that, either use PNG, or if your image only has a low number of colours (like this does....2-8 colours at most, depending on the program and tools used), then use gif. If it's like a photo, then use jpg.
Billy demonstrated it well.
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die.
GIF => Good for flat colour fields
JPEG => Good
PNG => oh no LZW is copyrighted....make a new file format
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's on about file size. Max quality for that image would be about 20kb...
Max compression JPEG comes out pretty much exactly the same as the original.
The only reason a GIF would win here is because of the limited palette. Try doing the same comparison with an image with 16 million colours. GIF would die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be confused about max compression and max quality. Also, you appear to be confused about how to read.
Maximum compression is lowest quality.
When I said "an image like this" at the very begining, I meant an image with limited palette and large flat areas. I am not debating whether a more complex image would be more suuited to jpeg - I am merely proceeding with my campaign to enlighten people about when to use .gif compression, for the sake of the intarnet!1
I am still right, and you sir can join the ranks of those who are wrong. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->