PDA

View Full Version : Challenge


Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 05:00 PM
I'm sick of how overrated PNG has become - it's cramming signatures around PC needlessly with 200-300 KB signatures, when they could be saved as JPGs with barely (if at all) visible quality loss. So I present to you a challenge.

One of these banners is a 54 KB JPG. The other is an 86 KB PNG. Can you tell me which is which without cheating?

http://tinypic.com/jkax6q.png

http://tinypic.com/jkaulw.jpg

~*LiZzIe BoRdEn*~
January 2nd, 2006, 05:04 PM
um, is the first one png and the second one jpg? AND I PROMISE I DIDN'T CHEAT!

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
January 2nd, 2006, 05:09 PM
I say that the 1 one is JPG. the 2 is png.

Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 06:48 PM
Aha, Lizzie was right. The first is the PNG and the second is the JPG.

But with Blaze's reply, I think I've made my point clear - you could cut your banners down to even half the filesize with un-noticable quality loss.

Sawyer
January 2nd, 2006, 07:00 PM
First is png, the second is jpg. See, with a sig like that, you can't tell much of a difference in them. However, when you get a sig that has crucial color quality with far more contrast than this one, it really does matter.

EDIT: Let's try a challenge of mine where you actually can tell the difference, shall we?

http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/2886/untitled2copy6cj.jpg

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/8721/torturedsoul6xd.png

Now, let's take a look at the first one. It is a jpeg. On the dragon's wing, do you notice tiny little bits that aren't there in the png? They weren't there in Photoshop, either. There is a difference, my friend.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2006, 07:11 PM
But you have to remember that some people don't use Photoshop, or a program that can easily make a JPG or a GIF look like a PNG. And if they do use Photoshop, they might not like doing it.

Sawyer: Surely you can do a high-quality GIF or JPG and get the same results. Even high-quality GIF/JPG are smaller than PNG most of the time, I do believe. ._.; *goes to play with it*
I just tried it (highest GIF and JPEG), and even at the lowest setting in PNG, it was the largest. They all looked the same to me. >> And for your test, it's not THAT bad of a diffrence. I can barely tell.

I think you should try to be considerate to people with dial-up. Not everyone has broadband.
Personally, these days, I don't do PNG because of that. I try to make them look good and make them small. The last time I saved PNG, it was spriting. ._.;

On topic, I couldn't tell the diffrence. ;D

Sawyer
January 2nd, 2006, 07:13 PM
Oh, well excuse me for being able to tell the difference ;-; I am a member at a whole bunch of art sites; they will be critical of those tiny little things, so I'm just speaking with the knowledge I have. Sorry. I'm just saying that I will continue to use .PNG for my own reasons, I can't be forced to listen to you, Ty.
EDIT: btw, I've been using .PNG since the first request thread I made; it hasn't seemed to be a problem until now.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2006, 07:18 PM
That's why I don't post in G/P very much, I don't have an eye for the little details in banner/avatar making, hense why all of my banners suck XP

But surely for sigs here, you don't need to have everything exact. You can probably risk cutting out the little details and save the dial-up users some time.

Sawyer
January 2nd, 2006, 07:19 PM
Yeah, I suppose, but I don't like going to all the trouble of making a .png for those sites, and then saving it as a jpeg for here, re-uploading, and putting in my sig. It's inconvenient, and it's not that huge of a file-size difference.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2006, 07:32 PM
I know it is troublesome, but surely you could take the time to do it :/ I mean, it's kinda like common courtesy. That's my point.
Either that, or you could have someone else do it. ._.;

True, there isn't much diffrence there, but you could probably cut it down some more. A good gif is much smaller than both of them, and it looks great to me.

Sawyer
January 2nd, 2006, 07:40 PM
A gif is far worse than a .png. You wanna see that sample sig as a gif? It loses almost all of its color quality, it gets those little dots, the resolution gets really crappy, it just sucks. Besides, it's not like PC could really use the extra bandwidth >_>

Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 07:47 PM
Oh, well excuse me for being able to tell the difference ;-; I am a member at a whole bunch of art sites; they will be critical of those tiny little things, so I'm just speaking with the knowledge I have. Sorry. I'm just saying that I will continue to use .PNG for my own reasons, I can't be forced to listen to you, Ty.
I'm not trying to force anybody. A small 340x100 banner is fine; a full-sized 500x300 banner is another story. And I'm seeing a lot of banners like that come around lately, it's horridly annoying waiting for that stuff to load.

But I was trying to make another point here too - you can only notice the difference if you look really carefully. People who criticise you for something that isn't even worth noticing have way too much time on their hands. =\

EDIT: btw, I've been using .PNG since the first request thread I made; it hasn't seemed to be a problem until now.
I looked at your request thread once. Haven't gone in there since. It took far too long to load. Again, your banner is fine, but the size of banners that people request in there in PNG format is just overkill.

MystiKal
January 2nd, 2006, 07:50 PM
You people just need broadband. =/

Sawyer
January 2nd, 2006, 07:53 PM
Of course... 500x300 banners are way oversized for a banner, especially a .png banner. Besides, the people making those 500x300 sized banners don't have enough detail in their banners that you could hardly tell the difference anyway. I'm saying, most actual graphic designers don't go much over 400x100, that's just pushing it. In my first banner thread, 400x100 was the default size, in my new thread, 380x85 was the default size, now I don't have a request thread, but I almost always make my banners 340x100. I mean, for a banner with so little detail in it, why have such a huge size? It's a waste of space. If someone who has a banner sized 450x150, for example, that has only an anime image, not a render, no, it's just the image with its actual background... how big does that sig need to be to see those details?

Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 08:02 PM
You people just need broadband. =/
I want broadband. My mother keeps saying she'll get it, and never does. When I mention it to her, she ignores me.

My banners are 400x150, that's about the biggest and the smallest I'm willing to make them. But I agree with the rest of what you said; I hate how big people make their banners. x_x Still, it could be an edgy impulse - they think their signatures will be just perfect if they're right on the limit.

MystiKal
January 2nd, 2006, 08:08 PM
Really what needs to happen is PC needs a sig size limit.

Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 08:11 PM
YES!

But they just refuse to implement one, and instead tell us to disable signatures. x__x I've had them disabled for months now. The problem is that amongst all the minute-loading crap, I've missed some beautiful signatures because of it.

MystiKal
January 2nd, 2006, 08:14 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean. But like 90% of forums out there have a sig limit I mean come on.

Geometric-sama
January 2nd, 2006, 08:29 PM
It's fairly obvious which is which... the one that's already preloaded into the cache from a previous thread in which you posted (in your sig) is the JPG. :P I completely agree with you, though; I'm very much against huge filesizes. Many people don't know how to compress a PNG image properly, either. For a sig you don't need the best quality in the world.

Spectrum
January 2nd, 2006, 08:56 PM
... Is it even possible to compress PNGs?

And if the staff brought in a filesize limit, I'd happily make a compression shop.

Kyosuke
January 3rd, 2006, 02:03 AM
I know what you mean about the large file sizes, even my own avatars and such are basically all saved as PNG, but not as big as the 200-300 files sizes ^^'. But you have to realize that some programs just flat out suck when it comes to proper compression of JPG's and when working with banners or whatever, the quality sometimes goes down dramatically. So PNG is sometimes what files need to be saved as, in order to keep some pictures looking "acceptable".

I'm sure you have a program that converts anything into a JPG format looking just as nice as a PNG, with a much smaller file size, but I'm just saying some programs are just terrible at it.

Spectrum
January 3rd, 2006, 02:06 AM
That's true. However, if a filesize limit were introduced, I (as mentioned above) would gladly help people meet the limits, as I'm sure others would also.

Kyosuke
January 3rd, 2006, 02:18 AM
That's true. However, if a filesize limit were introduced, I (as mentioned above) would gladly help people meet the limits, as I'm sure others would also.

There was a file size limit in the past, but many people just found ways to bypass it with different types of tags in their signature.

But thats not saying, there will never be a limit in the future again, if things get a little more hectic then they are at times, with certain people and the amount amount of pictures they have in their sig..

Kira
January 3rd, 2006, 03:41 AM
first one png, second jpg.

And PNG looks way better.

Spectrum
January 3rd, 2006, 04:30 AM
first one png, second jpg.

And PNG looks way better.
Yeah, see, the point of a thread is reading the entire thing before you post.

Sawyer
January 3rd, 2006, 04:43 PM
I can really easily change file sizes... with my mac, all you have to do is click the text, change the filetype, and type in png or jpg. or gif. or whatever you want =/ A signature limit is a great idea, I don't know why we haven't done it yet =/

Kurosaki
January 3rd, 2006, 05:44 PM
I can really easily change file sizes... with my mac, all you have to do is click the text, change the filetype, and type in png or jpg. or gif. or whatever you want =/ A signature limit is a great idea, I don't know why we haven't done it yet =/
Because it isn't needed. We only get EXTREMELY huge sigs on rare occassions, and members rarely complain about it.

_Manafi_
January 3rd, 2006, 07:37 PM
1# PNG it looks better

2# JPG looks faded

I guess

i did not cheat

THIRTY-SIX
January 4th, 2006, 12:22 AM
tys one i got right but Ac's i got wrong.......
i guess pngs are used so they can be edited further in a different program ie flash.... xD

Spectrum
January 4th, 2006, 12:28 AM
Because it isn't needed. We only get EXTREMELY huge sigs on rare occassions, and members rarely complain about it.
Because people think you can be punished for complaining.

And your signature is extremely huge, filesize-wise.

Avatar
January 4th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Because it isn't needed. We only get EXTREMELY huge sigs on rare occassions, and members rarely complain about it.
I see oversized sigs daily, and they're really annoying.

Kurosaki
January 4th, 2006, 10:47 AM
Because people think you can be punished for complaining.

And your signature is extremely huge, filesize-wise.
Oh cry me a river >>

If we implement a filesize limit, it's going to be 500KB or so, nothing less, nothing more.

Sawyer
January 4th, 2006, 01:03 PM
David, that is an extremely biased opinion. Why don't you take a look at your signature... and those members'. You're only protecting that right so that you can exploit it yourself. >_>

Kurosaki
January 4th, 2006, 01:39 PM
David, that is an extremely biased opinion. Why don't you take a look at your signature... and those members'. You're only protecting that right so that you can exploit it yourself. >_>
Go cry me a river isn't an opinion, and 500KB is the size limit we're making. It wasn't even me who came up with it. Oo

Spectrum
January 6th, 2006, 01:18 AM
Oh cry me a river >>
Okay.

If we implement a filesize limit, it's going to be 500KB or so, nothing less, nothing more.
I haven't seen a signature bigger than 500 KB since 2004. What a pointless limit.

THIRTY-SIX
January 6th, 2006, 05:26 AM
ok.... carrying on with the theme of the initial post
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/munna170488/noimagesig.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/munna170488/noimagesig.jpg

spot the difference....

Spectrum
January 6th, 2006, 05:31 AM
I can notice a few pixels that are sharper on the JPG, but that was merely because you asked us to look.

Sawyer
January 6th, 2006, 11:08 AM
David, I was referring to what you said before about the filesize limit, not "Go cry me a river".

rpg pokemon
January 6th, 2006, 11:14 AM
its up to us if we want to save images as pn or jepg so dont tell us that your thead up as we will do what we want to do. I save all my sigs in png and dont care what anybody says. Png is better!