Just had a concensus with Nige. Thank you for reading.

Much prefer jpegs.

Great argument we have here. How about some reasons ?

Cornet

PNGs are crap, if you use IE.  Unless IE7 has actually started to handle them properly, which is somehow doubt.

Quote from: BeakerPNGs are crap, if you use IE.  Unless IE7 has actually started to handle them properly, which is somehow doubt.

Probably what they are on about with regard to transparency and IE. Good quality Gif ftw.

Its nice to see the MS monopoly at work

/me takes note
PNGs are crap cos IE cant deal with alpha transparency
CSS must also be crap cos IE cant implement it properly.

Cornet

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: BeakerPNGs are crap, if you use IE.  Unless IE7 has actually started to handle them properly, which is somehow doubt.

Probably what they are on about with regard to transparency and IE. Good quality Gif ftw.

That, partially.

And to Cornet:

* huge, unreasonable filesizes, suited neither to graphics nor photos.
* their only use is alpha transparency which isnt supported well (not their fault granted)
* transparency is handled better by GIFs, photos by JPEGs - whats their purpose?

In all they are pointless. GIFs and JPEGs can handle any scenario more than adequately.

Load up a photo or a graphic in Photoshop and use Save For Web to see how filesizes vs quality compare for the different formats. PNGs are pathetic.

The CSS argument has no bearing on this, so let your anti-MS bandwagon roll on.

Quote from: cornetIts nice to see the MS monopoly at work

/me takes note
PNGs are crap cos IE cant deal with alpha transparency
CSS must also be crap cos IE cant implement it properly.

Cornet

7 is way way better. but it has been the case in many things where there is a comunity standard but MS feel they know better and make their own, which actually is not as good but is mainstream due to them being the Main stream

AS clockd put it, file size to function its not worth it and you can get the quality in jpeg for photo fine for size and Gif standards have come along way, its always had the ability but Image creation has improved and you can get fine quality from it.

PNG has the potential and really its actually harsh to call it crap when it is not really tbh, it can be better then the others for web use but no one really implements it correctly.
Its the betamax of image formats, lol.

Lets hope this sillly MS jpeg coming wont mess things up

Is it Ping or Pong?

png vs gif:

For the whole image, png saves 11kb in size (52kb vs 63kb), but pretty much looks the same:

PNG : GIF



But then jpg comes in at half the size with:



So ya, png looks pretty pointless as you cant animate em like a gif or compress em like a jpg ...unless you need the transparency thing.




Yes I know.

png  is a great file format when used in the proper context. I use it quite often when I need to post a screenshot or something that has text in it and has little gradient.

pngs are great if you like to waste other peoples bandwidth.

For greyscale images, PNG beats gif hands down (if saved/compressed properly  optimised). Its programs like Macromedia Fireworks that make PNGs too large through including lots of pointless information.

PNG beats JPEG and GIF for diagram-type images, such as ones with lagre block of colour and  simple shapes, as well as text, again if stored correctly.

The reason PNGs are sometimes larger is through the fact that they can store lots of metadata type information. Remove some of that and suddenly you have a tiny PNG file.

The only reason PNG was created because a company that owned a patent for the compression used in GIF started going after companies wanting royalties.  Thus PNG was born which was similar to GIF with bells and whistles attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Png

yeah - PNGs are only here cause gifs are not a free image format.  There are patents and potential royalties on their use for software.

noone claimed pngs were awesome...  Theyre prob on a par with gifs but a bit bigger when made with photoshop.  The gimp seems to be able to do  smaller saves than photoshop tho but not done anything as a png for a long time.

Quote from: Sampngs are great if you like to waste other peoples bandwidth.

Prove it with facts and figures instead of just being a general file format hater. Burdens in your court, as youve made the statement.

Personally, Ive found that pngs are often smaller than jpegs, when used for technical type images w/o gradients.

If youre using png when you should be using jpeg, and vice versa, yourre an idiot.