[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 680 KB, 900x905, derp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026532 No.6026532 [Reply] [Original]

Do you prefer to save Touhou images in JPG or PNG?

>> No.6026538
File: 405 KB, 854x1200, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026538

png

>> No.6026537

I do not care,I just want you to leave.

>> No.6026540

>>6026532
.jpg
I love the smaller, faster ones. Even if they technically are of lower quality.

>> No.6026543

bmp

>> No.6026544

>>6026532
.PSD
The superior format, for superior users, such as myself!

>> No.6026549
File: 14 KB, 900x905, 1282942884935.gif.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026549

JPG, because I sure as hell won't waste terabytes of space on silly pictures.

>> No.6026552

QUALITY THREAD

>> No.6026560

>>6026532
depends on the image

>> No.6026561

>>6026532

What? I save them in whatever format they are in. Why would I change formats?

>> No.6026578

I save nothing. I have eidetic memory.

>> No.6026579

I like Yuyuko more than Youmu. Sorry, what were you asking?

>> No.6026607

I prefer it when artists release their stuff as png, but of course I don't convert .jpgs to .pngs.
I usually optimize png pics though, often saves up to 50% space.

>> No.6026627

I should write a program that repeatedly opens and resaves jpgs

>> No.6026647

Hahaha, you actually think you get better quality if you resave a JPG file as a PNG? Fucking lol.

>> No.6026652

>>6026627
Uhh, why?

>> No.6026656
File: 95 KB, 335x568, 08ff44e12f046126dca1576532a49e12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026656

I like both

>> No.6026659

i don't mind having png. it's just that people do picture with jpg. format

>> No.6026671

>>6026652
Ask /g/.

>> No.6026675
File: 27 KB, 210x335, cirno informative_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026675

jpg is better for reaction images

png is better for wallpapers, artwork, and arguably manga

I don't mind pngs for reaction images if the file size is still under 80-100kb, though

>> No.6026678

>>6026652
Just try it in paint or something.

>> No.6026699

>>6026671
Ask /g/ what? Why the fuck would you want such a program? To show people what happens when you resave JPGs or something?

Oh, you are soooo smart for knowing that JPG is a lossy format!!

>> No.6026707

Many colors = jpg
Everything else = png

If your png is over 800 kb, start thinking "hmm, maybe I should make this a jpg". If it's over a mb, you don't even deserve to be able to save files.

The quality difference between a 1mb png and a 200kb jpg is almost nonexistent. Stop being idiots.

>> No.6026714

I used to use JPG for my images. But any new pictures I make I will distribute as PNG.

It's 2010, everybody should have enough bandwidth to handle lossless images nowadays.

>> No.6026720

>>6026707
>The quality difference between a 1mb png and a 200kb jpg is almost nonexistent.
Hahahaha

>> No.6026724

>>6026707

maybe you should join us in the 21st century

>> No.6026739
File: 113 KB, 2000x2060, 1281786211171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6026739

This image is very relevant to this thread.

>> No.6026750

>>6026707
Reminds me of when I went on some old science website for researching stuff and some flash video said "Be patient, as the file size is 1mb and it might take a while to load".

>> No.6026756

I only rage when people save screenshots in PNG format.

>> No.6026770 [DELETED] 

>>6026532
Thanks for making me wait almost a minute for a picture to load.

>> No.6026777

>>6026770
Are you on dialup?

>> No.6026789

>>6026756

God, that shit is the worst. As if it were so fucking hard to just save as a JPG and not bloat the file size

>> No.6026806

>>6026777
4chan works perfectly and is not slow at all (:

>> No.6026821

>>6026770
Torrenting a couple C78 released and anime, and that picture took but 2-3 seconds to finish.

>> No.6026829

>>6026770
sup 56k

>> No.6026847

[ ] saving a non-vectorized image in PNG
[ ] saving a vectorized image in JPG

>> No.6026855

smaller than 1000x1000

I don't really care, I guess .jpg is fine, as for anything higher resolution, I'd *prefer* .png, but don't often get it

Also: I would upload a 1000x1000+.png but my upload speed seems to have gone elsewhere.

>> No.6026866

if PNG is so good for higher resolution "photo" images, why not used BMP instead?

>> No.6026871

>>6026866
BMP doesn't support transparency channels, I think.

>> No.6026924

>>6026756
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. Tell me about it.

The worst thing, some idiots at /v/ actually approve of this, since they want "the best quality". What the fuck, they can't be THAT retarded.

>> No.6026939

>>6026924

>/v/tards
>not retarded

choose one

>> No.6026943

>>6026866
Because PNG losslessly compresses it?

You don't "lose" anything when saving to PNG from a bitmap, dumbass. The only difference is it takes up a LOT less in filesize.

>> No.6026947

.png is the shit

No image format even comes close.

>> No.6026950

>>6026943
Depends if it's PNG-16 or PNG-24.

>> No.6026958

>>6026866
BMP is an outdated file format that's essentially just a bloated .png nowadays.

Anyway:
Image is a screenshot, photograph or painting - anything with lots of colours: jpg
Image with little colour, vector work or has transparency: PNG

>> No.6026963

>>6026924
It's funny how they would scoff at someone resaving a JPG as a PNG, when what they are doing is pretty much the same. They probably don't even realize video encoding works on the same principles as JPG for coding the still pictures and so the quality loss is already there.

You could say saving in PNG makes it not get worse than it already is, but the quality difference is much less than compared to saving a full quality image as PNG instead of JPG, because it has already been subsampled.

>> No.6026965

I once converted 15 mb .bmp to jpg still 1 mb large...
But png is better.

>> No.6026973

>>6026950
There is no such thing as PNG-16. You have truecolor (24-bit) PNGs and indexed (max 8-bit) PNGs. And naturally, we're talking truecolor PNGs when the image has more than 256 colors.

>> No.6026974

Why are you guys so stingy with Drive space?

>> No.6026986

all image you saves originally was in JPG format but people still convert it to PNG without editing it first and uploading it again to the internet.

placebo effect

>> No.6026977

>>6026958
>outdated file format
>used by the OS all the time for virtually all visual tasks

>> No.6026990

>>6026973
My bad - I just remember one's lossless and the other's gif-ish.

>> No.6026994

>>6026977
And some people still use IE 6, what are you getting at?

It's completely unnecessary in this day and age.

>> No.6026998

>>6026986
I made pictures many times (created in a vector drawing program) and I certainly never saved my working images as JPG. You must be an idiot.

>> No.6027001

>>6026994
Your Windows 7 uses it too, dumbass. Get a clue how the OS handles image data.

>> No.6027004

>>6026974
POOORFAGGGS

>> No.6027008

>>6026998

I got a lot of drive space, but people who can't used a correct format for specific image are retarded.

>> No.6027013

>>6027008
And who are you to say how it's done? Shove your favorite format up your ass. Nobody cares how much of a poorfag you are.

>> No.6027014

>>6026974
Ohohoh, don't tell me you like to store your music in .wav simply because you have a large HDD.

>>6026977
That doesn't mean it's more practical than .png files.
Well, MAYBE it is, for how the OS handles things, but for everything else, it isn't.

>> No.6027018

I save them as whatever they are.

>> No.6027019

>>6027008
PNG is always the best format, because you lose no image data with it. And unlike with the FLAC/MP3 discussion, you actually CAN see the difference, unlike with audio coding which is meant to sound indistinguishable to the source ("virtually lossless").

Even if you save as maximum quality in any program, you can see the difference between a picture saved as PNG or JPG. Simply because pretty much all programs saving as JPG subsample to 4:2:2 first.

>> No.6027026 [DELETED] 

>>6027014
>but for everything else, it isn't.
Bitchass dymb nigga. Bring proof to the table before opening your mouth.
>store your music in .wav simply because you have a large HDD
Quality = One thing
Needless refomat = One thing
Learn the difference, punk.

>> No.6027034

>>6027014
>but for everything else, it isn't.
Bitchass dumb nigga. Bring proof to the table before opening your mouth.
>store your music in .wav simply because you have a large HDD
Quality = One thing
Needless reformat = One thing
Learn the difference, punk.

>> No.6027037

>>6027014
For distribution of images you should never use BMP. But for what it was meant to do, handle image data in the OS, it serves its purpose. It's not much of a format anyway, it's pretty much just a layout of what each pixel in an array should be colored like. There's really no encoding of any sort going on.

>> No.6027038

>>6027019
Then why is JPG so popular? Enlighten me.

>> No.6027039

>>6027038
The fucking web. You have now achieved Satori.

>> No.6027040

I prefer .png but if it's already in .jpg there's absolutely no reason to convert it.

>> No.6027042

>>6027038
Because everyone has used it since the dawn of time, and people will accept a file a tenth of the filesize of another format when they can't see much of a difference between the two.

You might as well ask "why is 128kbps MP3 so popular"? Same thing.

>> No.6027045

>>6027039
wat
Noob-tier explanation please.

>> No.6027047

>>6027042
FFFUUUUU XD
PNG IS BETTER THEN? ROFLMAO XDDD

>> No.6027098

>>6027047
Are you retarded?

>> No.6027101

>>6027034
>Bring proof to the table before opening your mouth.
Use the Internet for that, Scandy, it's way simpler than trying to explain. Still, common sense should tell you which one is better than the other.
But if you're completely ignorant, just remember that .png files are basically smaller .bmp files with access to transparency.

>Quality = One thing
>Needless reformat = One thing
>Learn the difference, punk.
Okay, then don't tell me you store all of your music in 320kbps mp3 instead of V0 VBR mp3 simply because you want to waste disk space.

>> No.6027111
File: 19 KB, 649x444, u_mad_by_DisFable.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6027111

>>6027098
u mad?

>> No.6027120

>>6027111
>act like a retard
>get called a retard
>"lololol u mad XDD"
If this isn't enough to make you ignore this thread until it dies, I don't know if there's anything that might be.

>> No.6027121

>>6027111
No, just surprised.

>> No.6027119

>>6027101
I'm not 100% sure, but I recall you can have transparency in BMPs as well. Browsers probably just don't support it (they shouldn't need to support BMP in the first place, but it's not like it's much work at all to add support for it).

>> No.6027127

>>6027101
Real men use --remix.

>> No.6027128

>>6027047
>>6027111
a typical /jp/ user

>> No.6027130

>>6027127
I mean --r3mix.

>> No.6027131

>>6027120
How can I ignore a thread with a picture like OP's?

Pretty much I'm sure like most others, I have vague preferences on image format, but I will save it in whatever format it is in.

>> No.6027138

I prefer truecolor GIF: http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html

>> No.6027139

>>6027119
If I'm not mistaken, it's not that browsers don't support it, but instead that some things are programmed to interpret a certain color present in .bmp files are being transparent (usually R255 G0 B255). Skins for Ragnarok Online are like this, for example, as well as nearly every element of Windows visual styles as well.

>> No.6027144

God these discussions make me want to punch kittens. Fucking idiots, stop using png for everything and stop hiding your stupidity behind your retarded "hurr I have a lot of hd space/100mbps internet connection".

It's not about the speed or the size, it's about not being fucking retarded.

>> No.6027156

>>6027144
Are you blind or something, that you can't see the difference between JPG and PNG?

I mean, I can understand when people say you can't hear the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3, but not being able to see JPG image defects... wow.

>> No.6027152

>>6027139
I support this, the bootlogo for my Archos 5 uses bitmaps with a certain colour being interpreted as transparent, but of course if I view the bitmap anywhere else, it just looks all fucked up.

>> No.6027177

>>6027156
Give me any png full of colors that isn't a vector and I will compress it to AT LEAST half the size without any kind of artifacting.

>> No.6027187

>>6027144
Take a screenshot of your desktop, then save it as .jpg. Use a zoom of more than 200% on it.
Now save that screenshot as .png. Use the same zoom on it.

You are now seeing the difference between those two formats.

>> No.6027188

>>6027177
>that isn't a vector
So you admit you can see the quality difference?

>> No.6027202

>>6027188

vectorized image in PNG tend to become smaller size than JPG.

does that make PNG is more ugly because of its size?

>> No.6027206

>>6027187
You, you're stupid.

>>6027188
No, I'm only saying that for a vector there's no point in saving as a jpg because you'd ruin the vector.

>> No.6027220

>>6027187

/jp/, I'm disappoint.

>> No.6027335

/jp/ - PNG vs JPG and autism

>> No.6027391

if the picture has alpha channels/transparency or is a sprite based work, png. otherwise jpg.

>> No.6027511

PNG would be vastly superior were it not for the "APNG format not supported" error you get here when you try to post apng.

Why on earth would you let people upload gif, but not apng?

>> No.6027579
File: 52 KB, 212x202, 1278885931390.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6027579

PNG

>> No.6027793

>>6027511
Because APNG is a disgusting hack.

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action