(2011-06-25, 04:04 PM)lucasbytegenius Wrote: [ -> ]And unless your computer is slow, there's no difference between PNG and JPG loading time, if they're both the same size file.
Of course not, but here we're talking about the same image in different formats, and PNG will be larger.
(2011-06-25, 04:04 PM)lucasbytegenius Wrote: [ -> ]Solidus, I've always had smaller PNG images than their JPG counterparts. I don't know, maybe you're doing something as they come out of the editor, but it's always been smaller for me, and then I make them even smaller by using http://smush.it
And unless your computer is slow, there's no difference between PNG and JPG loading time, if they're both the same size file.
You can also use PNG Optimizer
http://psydk.org/PngOptimizer.php
(2011-06-25, 04:23 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ] (2011-06-25, 04:04 PM)lucasbytegenius Wrote: [ -> ]Solidus, I've always had smaller PNG images than their JPG counterparts. I don't know, maybe you're doing something as they come out of the editor, but it's always been smaller for me, and then I make them even smaller by using http://smush.it
And unless your computer is slow, there's no difference between PNG and JPG loading time, if they're both the same size file.
You can also use PNG Optimizer http://psydk.org/PngOptimizer.php
Never used anything better than smush.it, but a native program does seem like a good idea. I'll give it a try.
Some information that was missing from the posts so far:
1.
GIF does support transparency, has lossless compression, but it's limited to 256 colors. It's the only format of the three that supports animation, and there are some really cool examples called
cinemagraphs.
2. JPG has lossy compression. For images with sharp edges (such as text like this, or screenshots), there will always be visible artifacts. For photographic images, JPG is great.
3.
PNG compression is lossless, and it supports alpha transparency.