Do approvers generally prefer to have JPG images over PNG if it were up to them? I did notice in my recent submissions it makes black backgrounds in the thumbnails.
Updated by user 29434
Posted under General
Do approvers generally prefer to have JPG images over PNG if it were up to them? I did notice in my recent submissions it makes black backgrounds in the thumbnails.
Updated by user 29434
Fencedude said:
PNG and JPEG have their own uses, and should be used in the appropriate manner.If you don't know what the differences and appropriate uses are, then don't go trying to convert things for us.
I do know some of the difference, but that answers my question. thanks.
Always use the original file in the original format when possible. Never download a file from a site, and convert it prior to uploading. Conversion will almost always lower the image quality or increase the file size with the same quality.
When you are creating your own files (e.g. with scans), JPG with a relatively high quality is usually preferable (high resolution PNGs tend to have unnecessarily large file sizes). Low quality JPGs (where jpeg artifacts are obvious) are bad.
For situations where lossless compression or transparency is required, use PNG. Images with large areas of a single color (without gradients) tend to compress the best with PNG. This might make it make more sense for vector images that have been rasterized (as most vectors you see online are).
KitKatBar said:
You can also reduce the file size of huge png images by saving them in the highest quality jpg setting in photoshop
And should, if the PNG filesize is around 1 MB or more; at least I got negative response back when I posted high-resolution scans from Moe.imouto as original PNGs.
See forum #27932 and forum #34417 for further reference.
Updated
Shinjidude said:
Always use the original file in the original format when possible. Never download a file from a site, and convert it prior to uploading. Conversion will almost always lower the image quality or increase the file size with the same quality.
That's the less important part, the more important is that it creates a new, distinct file with a different MD5 hash.
KitKatBar said:
You can also reduce the file size of huge png images by saving them in the highest quality jpg setting in photoshop
File size should not be a problem these days. You can also set to maximum PNG compression. But the worst of PNG to JPEG conversion is the inevitable loss of quality and transparency.
There is very little quality to be gained in using PNG over low compression, high quality JPEG for a >3000 pixel dimension file. There is a huge file size advantage to using JPEG.
Just because file size isn't a huge problem doesn't mean it is a good idea to waste bandwidth and server space for little to no actual gain.
korokun said:
File size should not be a problem these days.
It is when it takes 20 seconds for the image to load on danbooru instead 5, especially when you opened a load of posts at the same time just to figure out there's absurdres written on each tab.
Also, I'd rather have my imageboards folder take 3Gb of space instead of 10, especially when the 7Gb difference comes from 10% of the files, saved as absurdres pngs just for the sake of seeing the scan artifacts from closer.
I pretty much end up resizing and converting these myself when I save them because I don't like having a 120Mb folder of 3 pictures not even more interesting than the 10Mb folder of 20 pictures next to it, and longer to load.
0xCCBA696 said:
Well then, what's the problem?
I'm mainly ranting about lazy people who upload png overkill material, just because the site allows it.
As Shinjidude said it's a waste of bandwith and space for the server.
Then it's a waste of time for users as well when you have to load images from the server (danbooru is far from being as fast as imouto these days). And I doubt uploaders would rather keep these files rather than reasonably compressed ones in the first place.