• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    133 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
      03 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
        73 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
          3 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
            63 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
            33 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
              13 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.