Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man Mandalay, Goleta and Gaviota Beaches Today
17 comments
17 comments
2 | Daniel Ballard Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:48:47pm |
re: #1 researchok
Heh, I think I need a more demanding source file. I'll start with one of the 25 meg RAW files from my 7D and see how that goes.
3 | Interesting Times Mon, Nov 12, 2012 4:08:08pm |
re: #2 Daniel Ballard
My initial impression was that the PNG looks ever-so-slightly sharper. But not enough to justify its much larger file size vs the JPG, if you're thinking in terms of websites/bandwidth.
6 | Our Precious Bodily Fluids Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:24:59pm |
Better shadow detail in the PNG.
7 | darthstar Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:51:26pm |
Can't tell the difference on my MacBook Pro with retina display. (apparently retina display means something good)
8 | Charles Johnson Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:55:15pm |
PNG is a lossless format, so it's always going to be much larger in file size. But by its nature it will also be as close to the original as possible.
For this kind of image, though, with a lot of color gradation, the visible difference is minuscule, especially if the JPEG is saved at a high quality, and the JPEG file will be a lot smaller.
PNG images really work much better with line art, or images with lots of solid colors. And the real advantage of PNG files, for web design anyway, is that they have a true alpha channel for transparency.
For putting photos on the web, JPEG is almost always going to be the better choice in terms of the tradeoff between file size and image quality.
9 | darthstar Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:58:29pm |
re: #8 Charles Johnson
I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.
10 | Charles Johnson Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:01:12pm |
re: #9 darthstar
I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.
PNG can be smaller than JPEG for some types of images, but for photographs almost never.
11 | CuriousLurker Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:03:58pm |
re: #9 darthstar
I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.
Ditto what CJ said.
Also, they're almost always smaller than GIFs when used for line art or images with large areas of flat color
12 | Daniel Ballard Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:15:41pm |
re: #8 Charles Johnson
Thank you for that, as long as I'm tuning images up for various formats, I figured to set one up for LGF.
And to share a little news-I hired a lady to make a wordpress blog for me with a e commerce retail front end so people can buy prints or high res digital files. Hopefully a retina display friendly site.
13 | Gretchen G.Tiger Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:28:01pm |
My only input is the the second image looks over-exposed.
:)
14 | lostlakehiker Mon, Nov 12, 2012 10:12:18pm |
I vote for the top image. Put aside questions of file size. Just which looks better.
Slightly off topic? I had the opportunity once to walk up to a controlled, rather large natural gas fire. At closest approach, it was maybe 10 yards away, and filled much of my view.
That lasted less than two seconds, of course. Those things are hot. But the sight was unforgettable. Flames such as the one in the photo, when live and moving, are hypnotic and fascinating. "Towering Inferno" did its best to convey that. But the real thing is more impressive.
15 | Mattand Tue, Nov 13, 2012 5:31:47am |
re: #13 Gretchen G.Tiger
My only input is the the second image looks over-exposed.
:)
Heh, I actually gravitated towards that one because it looked brighter.
I don't do as much web work as I should, but I have rarely encountered PNGs over the years. It's the default format for Apple's screenshots now, but that's about it. Any web wonks out there actually using it for real work?
16 | Mattand Tue, Nov 13, 2012 5:33:57am |
re: #8 Charles Johnson
PNG is a lossless format, so it's always going to be much larger in file size. But by its nature it will also be as close to the original as possible.
For this kind of image, though, with a lot of color gradation, the visible difference is minuscule, especially if the JPEG is saved at a high quality, and the JPEG file will be a lot smaller.
PNG images really work much better with line art, or images with lots of solid colors. And the real advantage of PNG files, for web design anyway, is that they have a true alpha channel for transparency.
For putting photos on the web, JPEG is almost always going to be the better choice in terms of the tradeoff between file size and image quality.
IIRC, PNG is an open format as well, created in response to some licensing issues around the GIF format.
17 | Daniel Ballard Tue, Nov 13, 2012 9:58:30am |
re: #14 lostlakehiker
FYI-That flame is from a 100,000 BTU blast furnace, with the lid removed just before the air fan spins up and adds oxygen and make the fire hotter and stay down in the furnace. For perspective that flame was about eight feet tall. I shot it at 1/8000th of a second shutter speed.
the furnace with the air boost reaches 2000F.