A case against JPG

OuTpaTienT · January 9th, 2003, 11:05 PM

No Artifacts: A case against JPG, by yours truly

This topic seems to be something I have tried to explain to many people over the ages so I thought I should stop repeating my explaination and make it more permanent. This way I don't need to do no 'splainin', I can just give'em a link.

OuT

jkrohn · January 9th, 2003, 11:13 PM

Very good article out

I guess you can say it opened my eyes. Only thing against PNG for webdesigners (unless the newest IE6 has fixed it) is that IE6 doe not always render PNG correctly

Jkrohn

NeoStarO1 · January 9th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Wow!!!!! Nice ARticle OuT, I am really impressed.

I didn't know any of that either, Im not an artist but tend to save my images in jpg fromat.

I still have a question tho. If a person were to use more of the png format how does that for when you send the files to family or others computers? Will they be able to view it?

JayMan · January 9th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Off to read it now....

jkrohn, IE6 still doesn't render PNG with transparent parts properly. Maybe M$ will get it right in version 7??? whenever that will be out....

JayMan

JayMan · January 9th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Havent read all the article yet... but i noticed your title image is jpg....

hehe

JayMan

PresterJohn · January 9th, 2003, 11:21 PM

a nicely done article, OuTpaTienT.

edit:
NeoStarO1, a good PNG viewer would be the ubiqiuous (sp?) irfanview...a 'jack-of-all-trades' if there was one!

JayMan · January 9th, 2003, 11:28 PM

Pretty nice article....

Also noticed the OIC banner is jpg.... hehe

JayMan

Kuasimodem · January 9th, 2003, 11:30 PM

GEEEZ!!

Another bookmark for my collection

OuTsTanDinG work OuTpaTienT!!

OuTpaTienT · January 9th, 2003, 11:50 PM

hehe. Thanks.

JayMan, although it might sort of sound that way, I'm not calling for the death of the JPG format.

As I said, it has it's niche to fill, and generally does a good job at it.

And any image of mine you see on the web might very well be a JPG. This is what JPG format is perfect for. But I can guarantee you I have the original of said image on my hard drive as a PSD, TIF, PNG, TGA, BMP, or possibly some other lossless format. (Usually they're just kept as Photoshop documents, PSD.)

I'm not calling for the end of JPGs. I AM calling for the masses to start putting the JPG format in it's proper perspective.

Most people think that JPG is an all-encompassing all-purpose good-for-everything image format. And to the contrary, it's not. It's good for one thing; shrinking file size. And it does it at the cost of image quality.

JayMan · January 9th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Yeh i know where your comming from Out, but i just thought it ironic that an article use to show the bad points of JPG used JPG's on the page (altho i also noticed all your example pics were png).

I actually use photimpact (by Ulead, probably not as powerfull as photoshop, but i'm just used to it), and when doing stuff for the net i'll usually just see which format gives the smallest size with best noticable quality, easily done in photoimpact, has a thing where you can compair the original to the compressed image & easily swicth between compressions/formats.

Eventually i'll move to photoshop probably, but since i'm used to photoimpact i just can't be bothered learning from the beginning how to use photoshop.

edit: that reminds me, i really need to update my avatar.....

JayMan