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: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...
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.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.
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!!!"
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 picturesHaos 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.
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.