B
bubipoo
hi guys,
what's the best picture format to use on html pages?
regards
darren
what's the best picture format to use on html pages?
regards
darren
L
Leif K-Brooks
Depends on who you ask, but I'd use PNG.bubipoo said:
R
rf
Leif K-Brooks said:
For pictures most definately jpeg. A png can be 8 times as big since a png
does not use lossy compression whereas a jpeg does.
I have a roo,
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg [38K]
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.gif [65K]
A png should be used where no loss can be tolerated, for example a
graphically designed (ie not a picture) company logo.
If colour depth is not an issue, for example pictures of text or graphic art
with few colours then a gif may be better. Even better if you can reduce the
colour depth of the gif further then the maximum of 256 colours. There are
sites around (forget just now) that will take your gif and flatten it for
you, often reducing the size by an order of magnitude.
Best bet is to construct one of each, look at them and choose the smallest,
keeping in mind colour depth and compression losses.
Cheers
Richard.
B
bubipoo
thank richard and leif.
i was using bitmaps but they bog things down a bit.
regards
darren
i was using bitmaps but they bog things down a bit.
regards
darren
rf said:
R
rf
bubipoo said:
AAARRRRRRGGGGGHH.
Never ever use a bitmap (I assume you mean BMP). They are not compressed at
all, that is there are three bytes in there for every single pixel, plus a
bunch of Microsoft invented overhead. They are also not supported by many
browsers.
My roo comes in at 504K as a bmp, something I just don't have the space on
my web site to publish.
Phew, I'm glad you asked your question
Cheers
Richard.
E
EightNineThree
bubipoo said:
Typically, jpg is better for photo quality images or images with a lot of
gradient.
gif is better for line art stuff and things without much gradient.
gif is often smaller in (data) size to a certain point. Although jpg can
compress further, it tends to really turn to shit quite fast after a certain
point.
png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
a) supports transparency
b) is very light
c) supports photo quality
Someone else here may be able to give better info on PNG, but it wasn't well
supported until relatively recent browser versions.
With the rate of browser/ OS upgrade, I think PNG is safe to use unless your
target user is using old browsers.
N
Nico Schuyt
EightNineThree said:
I never managed to make a PNG transparent (in IE)
What do I do wrong?
Regards, Nico
R
rf
Nico Schuyt said:
You have used IE. IE does (AFAIK) not support transparency in PNGs.
Cheers
Richard
T
Tom J
Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers because they don't support it.
Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers that do support it, because they
wouldn't wait around for the page to load. If a page doesn't load in around
30 seconds at 52k it's too slow. The majority of viewers are still on
dial-up.
I use thumbnails and then have each photo on a separate page for those that
want to see the larger photo.
Tom J
C
Chris Morris
Tom J said:
No. The browsers that support GIF but don't support PNG [1] are
incredibly rare. Netscape 3 or earlier, Mosaic, early Internet
Explorer (4 and above are fine). In other words, browsers that are
almost extinct, and getting rarer.
PNG is smaller than GIF except in a few limited cases (small image
with <= 16 colours). If you use PNG as a JPEG replacement then you
will get this problem, but PNG isn't intended as a JPEG replacement.
True, though if it doesn't load in 10 seconds at that speed it's too slow.
[1] There are a lot of browsers that don't support PNG, but most of
them don't support any other type of image apart from displaying the
alt attribute as text.
L
Leif K-Brooks
E
EightNineThree
Tom J said:
First, PNG images are able to compress smaller, much like gif.
Second, its actually 8-15 seconds when people bail out.
R
rf
Leif K-Brooks said:
Er, MS Image Composer (yeah I know but it comes with my system).
Not bad. There is a noticible difference in image quality though, expecially
colour (the orange bits).
Cheers
Richard.