A simple clock application

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Gasmann
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Gasmann »

Haos wrote:No, i`m using LCD 1280x1024. I suppose i`m blind or adjusted for jpegs, as i dont really notice artifacts unless i get really close to screen...
If you don't want to see it because it doesn't suit your jpg propaganda, of course you won't. They are very well noticable (hint: look at the irfanview icons, they took most obvious damage IMO).
Haos wrote:Yeah, 8kb on 52kb img, which is barely 15%... It took well over a minute to save this PNG using PNGOUT plugin. PNG would be of similar size.
Noone forces you to use PNGOUT! Even with png set to level 9 your test png compresses better than this jpeg (48kb), and this only takes less than a second on a modern pc.

On another site of view, this whole comparison is crap. Of course you can set the lossy coder to any output size, which can't be done with the lossless coder. You don't take into account how much damage is done to your picture. You would say: "JPG can go as low as 11kb at quality 1! PNG can only go down to 43kb, how stupid! JPG beats PNG by MILES!!!"
Haos wrote:Also, you could see artifacts here only because of sharp cutoff between icons and background. If you`d be making sshots of a game for example, it wouldn`t be really noticable.
That's of course correct. But that's not what I was talking about. JPG will probably perform better on such more detailful and less "unnatural" pictures. That's what it was made for afterall, photo-like pictures :wink:

And finally, I just meant to *add* the possibility to save to PNG, not to *remove* JPG support. Go your way and make bad looking screenshots, don't think I care. Forcing people not willing to learn is just a waste of time. They know everything better anyway. I wish I never came up with that statement about jpg vs. png.
Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos »

Sheesh, what a big words: propaganda, crap comparison, forcing people to learn... You really need to get some anger control there, as it is not a reason to get offended.

Also please remember that something better is an enemy of something good.
Harteex
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Harteex »

Haos wrote:Sheesh, what a big words: propaganda, crap comparison, forcing people to learn... You really need to get some anger control there, as it is not a reason to get offended.

Also please remember that something better is an enemy of something good.
If anyone needs anger control here its' you tbh... >_> Often flaming people on the forum.

Ohwell, Gasmann summed it up pretty well.
Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos »

I havent flamed anyone for prefering one image type over another, usually those were quite more serious matters if you really recall them and not just remembering some impression you got on me.

Anyway, it`s getting quite offtopic... Either let`s get back on track or just close it.
.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

ah! lock this topic!
can't you just say:
you've got diskspace, use png, it's lossless
you need to send your photos somewhere, use lossy jpg?
right tool for right job,

it was meant as topic about clock application that uses some api that ros do not implement/support/handle proper..
shevegen
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:25 pm

Post by shevegen »

Haos even if words such as "propaganda" are not nice, the point in it still bears truth - jpg always has this artifacts problem compared to png

These days I am using .png whenever possible, even though for very big files jpg is better for the storage ratio simply because .png become really big.
My largest file is a map
PNG image data, 3300 x 2243, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced
it has 8.3 MG
it used to be jpg but jpg really sucks since whenever you modify it and save again, in total the quality drops, even though the file size is smaller. This is why i actually try to avoid jpg whenever possible
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests