Question
I've encountered a website that is using PNG images.
Is this good or bad or indifferent?
What do you all think of it?
I did do some reading on the PNG file format.
http://graphicdesign.about.com/libra.../web/blpng.htm
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/
They say PNG can compress smaller and cleaner than GIF especially text.
I think I'll stick to GIF's and JPG's but will experiment with PNG's
Answer
there's nothing wrong with PNG images.. but I wouldn't use them on a website. Not all browsers support the filetype. Therefore you're alienating some of your viewers. Why bother? Just do gif or jpg -- it's not like you're trying to do lossless compression or anything for webviewing.
as far as compression size --- images - text -- etc. Do it as jpg and then slice the images and reassemble using a table. That way you can have a VERY clean image (jpg) w/out any artifacts.
Answer
PNG's are nice because they will save crisper than a gif when doing a transparent background however I find the file sizes to be larger not smaller.
I don't use them on web sites because (like Rosiebud said) they are not fully supported as of yet.
Hopefully some day transparent gifs wont need to be matted
Answer
Do it as jpg and then slice the images and reassemble using a table I have a kitchen table, would that work?
w/out any artifacts dang now we've got to know archaeology?
save crisper I have a crisper in my fridge(the one in the same room as the table mentioned above)
some day transparent gifs wont need to be matted well, if they do I suppose you could just take them to the frame store
All of this to say I'm really glad you all know what you were talking about
Answer
Originally Posted by rosiebud
as far as compression size --- images - text -- etc. Do it as jpg and then slice the images and reassemble using a table. That way you can have a VERY clean image (jpg) w/out any artifacts.
Hi rosiebud,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Are there any good online tutorials for this, that you can point me to?
Answer
MGC.............. you crack me up
I needed a laugh tonight.
Answer
do a search for "image slicing tutorial" .. or even just "image slicing". There's various programs that will do it for you.. image ready from Adobe..even Paintshop does it now.
For example, the image on the following page: http://www.evisione.com - if saved whole for best picture quality (who wants artifacts and dithering?) would be approximately 150+kb. Anyone with a decent connection will be able to download it w/out a problem. But those who are on a dialup will have a bit of a wait. What I've done is saved it w/ low compression ratio .. and then sliced it and reassembled it. The smaller pieces (which are anywhere between 5-12kb each) will fill in faster than it would for the single 150+kb piece would.
There are different arguements concerning this whole thing. Some say it takes the same amount of time, others say it saves time. IMO, it saves time and is more pleasing to the eye in the longrun.
Answer
You are most welcome. Sometimes I'm just puttering around trying to be comic relief
Originally Posted by ddhafe
MGC.............. you crack me up
I needed a laugh tonight.
Answer
Different need use different picture format.
usually,The high quality picture uses the jpg format,The cartoon and the icon uses gif format. Relative are quite few use png format .
Answer
I have recently found out that only the transparent PNGs are not supported so if your PNG is going to have a background you should be able to use it without fear.
The transparent PNGs are still not supported by IE entirely however the background "funk" is getting lighter (used to be black - now it is gray!)
lol