• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -72 months ago

    PNG started out as ZIP(BMP) and hasn’t gotten that much better. Use JPEG. The pixels you lose are not worth crying about

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 months ago

      JPEG for graphics like screenshots is not very efficient. For stuff like that, png is simply superior. (But not with compression 0)

      PNG is not good for photos though.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        02 months ago

        why though? The graphics represented in the screen are already squashed and scaled, so you wouldn’t be preserving their quality in any case. If you’re worried about text, JPEG should still be able to handle it under high quality settings

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          72 months ago

          We can ask the same the other way around: why do you want to use jpg if it results in a bigger size and worse quality than png?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            But that’s patently untrue: take this 10 MB example TIFF file as an example.

            • PNG Compression, max compress (=quality 9):

              convert file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff -quality 9 test.png
              
            • JPG Encoding, 99% quality (=quality 99):

              convert file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff -quality 99 test.jpg
              

            Final file size comparison:

            9.7M Sep  5 13:21 file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff
            1.7M Sep  5 13:22 test.jpg
            2.5M Sep  5 13:22 test.png
            

            PNG is significantly larger, and difference in quality between them is negligible

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              62 months ago

              Dude. Did you even read what I wrote? PNG is bad for photos. Your example is a photo. Go ahead and try the same with a screenshot with text and menus showing.

            • ms.lane
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 months ago

              png - jpg

              156K Sep  5 23:06 Screenshot_20240905_230459.jpg
              137K Sep  5 23:05 Screenshot_20240905_230459.png
              

              jpg with 80% compression, via krita.

              As B0rax said, for screenshots, png is better - it can represent line graphics and text more efficiently.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 months ago

                Thanks for this. Still, I would be curious to see this for a 4K level image. Also I wonder if your screenshot tool did a bitmap copy of the screen or intrinsically converted it to PNG first before pasting it into your paint editor.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      122 months ago

      Or they could just compression for their PNGs. PNG is a lossless format so they’ll only lose a fraction of a second during creation.

    • Lucy :3
      link
      fedilink
      22 months ago

      I use 4k because I like seeing a lot of stuff at the same time in good quality.
      I make screenshots of my whole screen to share all the stuff in the highest detail.
      Using jpeg would result in literally unreadable pictures.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        Depends on the Quality setting and version of jpeg. Even the original jpeg, on high quality, will result in little to no data loss. IIRC, Jpeg can even do lossless, with the only caveat being that it doesn’t save alpha channels (but screenshots don’t need to have transparency, anyway). Newer versions of jpeg, such as jpeg-2000 (and the much less broadly supported jpeg-XL) have much better compression and provide higher image quality at lower file size.

        “jpegification” or “Deep-frying” only really occurs with the original jpeg at low quality settings.