We spent a while in Photoshop testing it out with photos and graphics and were totally unimpressed.

If it doesnt come out of Photoshop in a reasonable size and quality, it isnt worth bothering with.

PNG-8 was even worse, twice the size of a GIF!

Quote from: maximusotterProve 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.

You suported it from the start so its too late now.   The blood is on your hands.

Quote from: maximusotter

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, youre an idiot.

Im sure he could but why waste the time producing some things when Nige and sam are really busy with their work at the moment just to lay down things to prove it for a couple of people on a forum when their opinion using their findings has given them their conclusion that wont change their opinion, and wont most likely change yours.
Others who already know what they mean have shown that in comments and know the sort of things they are referring to

So really there is not point in making the effort when you can spend 20 seconds googling it but then you can also pull up things saying its the best thing since slice bread so again not worth it really.

If you hate and you tested and you think others are better you do, if you love them you use them and they dont

I mean Me personally I agree with sam because i know what he is referring to, I mean make a gif works fine, png IE spits it out to fix you can fix but you got to use hax
http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/06/18/
Why when you dont need to is my opinion and of course thats what it is an opinion.

Same with tables, Sam and nige cant fully do what i can using divs, tables work for them, flaws in both because of cross browsers, I can achieve quite a lot of everything using divs so i love them, Sam prefers tables. How things go.

On  a side note - If I do this thing tomorrow I think I can do I mentioned to Nige Im going to be even more impressed with myself and Divs since I actually think i can do it and it will involve gifs and transparencies funny enough, lol.

Quote from: maximusotter

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.

I spent 10 minutes saving various files in photoshop and each time either GIF or JPEG was smaller. JPEG at 100% quality was about 5 times smaller than PNG.

Quote from: neXusSame with tables, Sam and nige cant fully do what i can using divs, tables work for them, flaws in both because of cross browsers, I can achieve quite a lot of everything using divs so i love them, Sam prefers tables. How things go.

I dont have DIVs per se, I just hate anything that doesnt work properly in all browsers when there is a method for doing something that does work properly in all browsers.

IE the table - tables do tables! They do them better than divs with about 10 times less code. So why bother with a div ?

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: neXusSame with tables, Sam and nige cant fully do what i can using divs, tables work for them, flaws in both because of cross browsers, I can achieve quite a lot of everything using divs so i love them, Sam prefers tables. How things go.

I dont have DIVs per se, I just hate anything that doesnt work properly in all browsers when there is a method for doing something that does work properly in all browsers.

IE the table - tables do tables! They do them better than divs with about 10 times less code. So why bother with a div ?

Well I can do things woring in all browsers and feel with divs use 10 times less code and better sperated style and structure and function

jpgs are lossy compression and from memory pngs aint,
if you save a jpg over itself multiple times, itll look worse and worse.

pngs shouldnt since if memories correct and theyre based on lossless compression,
for webpages though, the transpancy issues with IE and other browsers sucks it down.

although theyre bigger, i tend to use png at work as at least the picture will remain the same however its chopped about by everyone, i cant say the same about jpgs.

If you work with graphics there are far more suitable formats than PNG to use, you should never save graphic work files as JPEG, only when exporting for the web/final distribution.

Editing or shopping an image and you should be saving in raw, bmp, tiff or a proprietary format so you dont get a problem with compound detail loss. You should only save in JPG when you are ready for pushing it onto the web and you should still keep the original work so if you have to change it you can do so easily without problem.

PNG will be used more next year, since vista is out there and IE 5 with no more support and most on IE 7 you can have true transparency on websites.

Just trying to make something new and clever today and would like to use it and having to do a work around for IE6 and 5 noobs

MS fault really but meh.

You should be using psd when developing and then jpeg and gif for distribution.

PNG is a nice idea but the file sizes are just massive.

Here are the facts:

* PNG is non-lossy, JPEG is lossy, GIF is lossy for images with > 256 colours.
* PNG is generally between 5 and 30% smaller file size than GIF
* PNG supports true colours (24bit), GIF is only 8bit colour depth
* PNG has 8bit alpha transparency channel, GIF only has 1bit alpha transparency channel
* PNG can hold the Gamma value for the creation device, when displayed it will alter the Gamma to match the monitor settings (you should not store the Gamma value if you are trying to match it to colours set via CSS)

What you should use them for:
* JPEG : Photos
* GIF : Animations, graphics with few colours where you want sharp edges
* PNG : Transparent graphics, non photo stuff with gradients etc... block colours will compress better than GIF since PNG compresses both horizontally and vertically. PNG also retains sharp edges

IE 7 does support PNGs alpha transparency from what ive read so expect PNG to replace GIF for 90% of things.

Cornet

Id like to see some evidence to support the claims to filesizes compared to our experience using industry standard software (Photoshop).

QuoteIE 7 does support PNGs alpha transparency from what ive read so expect PNG to replace GIF for 90% of things.

In five years time when the world catches up to IE7 and it is the de facto standard browser, and even then it would be silly to use it in 90% of cases still. We manage to design websites that dont need 8 bits of alpha transparency just fine.

Quote from: cornetHere are the facts:
Cornet

Well thats some awesome facts ! Here are some real world uses for those facts:

Images > 256 colours where you want the smallest file size without loss of quality.

In order to use image formats effectivly you must understand what they are capable of.

Very small images only consisting of a few colours will always be smaller in GIF due to the overhead with the larger header in PNG.