what picture format?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by bubipoo, Sep 11, 2003.

  1. bubipoo

    bubipoo Guest

    hi guys,
    what's the best picture format to use on html pages?

    regards
    darren
    bubipoo, Sep 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. bubipoo wrote:
    > what's the best picture format to use on html pages?

    Depends on who you ask, but I'd use PNG.
    Leif K-Brooks, Sep 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    message news:8CT7b.7605$2.webusenet.com...
    > bubipoo wrote:
    > > what's the best picture format to use on html pages?

    > Depends on who you ask, but I'd use PNG.


    For pictures most definately jpeg. A png can be 8 times as big since a png
    does not use lossy compression whereas a jpeg does.

    I have a roo,
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg [38K]
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.gif [65K]

    A png should be used where no loss can be tolerated, for example a
    graphically designed (ie not a picture) company logo.

    If colour depth is not an issue, for example pictures of text or graphic art
    with few colours then a gif may be better. Even better if you can reduce the
    colour depth of the gif further then the maximum of 256 colours. There are
    sites around (forget just now) that will take your gif and flatten it for
    you, often reducing the size by an order of magnitude.

    Best bet is to construct one of each, look at them and choose the smallest,
    keeping in mind colour depth and compression losses.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 11, 2003
    #3
  4. bubipoo

    bubipoo Guest

    thank richard and leif.
    i was using bitmaps but they bog things down a bit.

    regards
    darren


    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:33U7b.94032$...
    >
    > "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    > message news:8CT7b.7605$2.webusenet.com...
    > > bubipoo wrote:
    > > > what's the best picture format to use on html pages?

    > > Depends on who you ask, but I'd use PNG.

    >
    > For pictures most definately jpeg. A png can be 8 times as big since a png
    > does not use lossy compression whereas a jpeg does.
    >
    > I have a roo,
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg [38K]
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.gif [65K]
    >
    > A png should be used where no loss can be tolerated, for example a
    > graphically designed (ie not a picture) company logo.
    >
    > If colour depth is not an issue, for example pictures of text or graphic

    art
    > with few colours then a gif may be better. Even better if you can reduce

    the
    > colour depth of the gif further then the maximum of 256 colours. There are
    > sites around (forget just now) that will take your gif and flatten it for
    > you, often reducing the size by an order of magnitude.
    >
    > Best bet is to construct one of each, look at them and choose the

    smallest,
    > keeping in mind colour depth and compression losses.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Richard.
    >
    >
    bubipoo, Sep 11, 2003
    #4
  5. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "bubipoo" <> wrote in message
    news:gAU7b.94072$...
    > thank richard and leif.
    > i was using bitmaps but they bog things down a bit.


    AAARRRRRRGGGGGHH.

    Never ever use a bitmap (I assume you mean BMP). They are not compressed at
    all, that is there are three bytes in there for every single pixel, plus a
    bunch of Microsoft invented overhead. They are also not supported by many
    browsers.

    My roo comes in at 504K as a bmp, something I just don't have the space on
    my web site to publish.

    Phew, I'm glad you asked your question :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 11, 2003
    #5
  6. "bubipoo" <> wrote in message
    news:RnT7b.93936$...
    > hi guys,
    > what's the best picture format to use on html pages?
    >
    > regards
    > darren


    Typically, jpg is better for photo quality images or images with a lot of
    gradient.
    gif is better for line art stuff and things without much gradient.

    gif is often smaller in (data) size to a certain point. Although jpg can
    compress further, it tends to really turn to shit quite fast after a certain
    point.

    png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
    a) supports transparency
    b) is very light
    c) supports photo quality

    Someone else here may be able to give better info on PNG, but it wasn't well
    supported until relatively recent browser versions.
    With the rate of browser/ OS upgrade, I think PNG is safe to use unless your
    target user is using old browsers.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 11, 2003
    #6
  7. bubipoo

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    EightNineThree wrote:

    > png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
    > a) supports transparency
    > ....


    I never managed to make a PNG transparent (in IE)
    What do I do wrong?
    Regards, Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Sep 11, 2003
    #7
  8. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:3f605bbc$0$28906$...
    > EightNineThree wrote:
    >
    > > png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
    > > a) supports transparency
    > > ....

    >
    > I never managed to make a PNG transparent (in IE)
    > What do I do wrong?
    > Regards, Nico


    You have used IE. IE does (AFAIK) not support transparency in PNGs.

    Cheers
    Richard
    rf, Sep 11, 2003
    #8
  9. bubipoo

    Headless Guest

    rf wrote:

    >You have used IE. IE does (AFAIK) not support transparency in PNGs.


    It does to a limited extend, Alpha Transparency is not supported at all,
    24 bit single colour transparent png's aren't supported either afaics,
    but palette based single colour transparent png's are supported (IE6
    anyway).


    Headless

    --
    Email and usenet filter list: http://www.headless.dna.ie/usenet.htm
    Headless, Sep 11, 2003
    #9
  10. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "Headless" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > rf wrote:
    >
    > >You have used IE. IE does (AFAIK) not support transparency in PNGs.

    >
    > It does to a limited extend, Alpha Transparency is not supported at all,
    > 24 bit single colour transparent png's aren't supported either afaics,
    > but palette based single colour transparent png's are supported (IE6
    > anyway).


    Interesting Headless. That explains all, well most of it :)

    It also narrows the playing field considerably, does it not?
    Transparency --> gifs

    I don't use PNG's anyway. jpegs and gifs are enough.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 11, 2003
    #10
  11. bubipoo

    Dylan Parry Guest

    rf wrote:

    > I don't use PNG's anyway. jpegs and gifs are enough.


    As you have said, GIFs are for transparency, but I find that when I want
    to use an image that would normally be a GIF but _doesn't_ contain
    transparency, then a PNG is better - mainly due to being that tiny bit
    smaller thus saving on the old data transfer allowance.

    --
    Dylan Parry - http://www.DylanParry.com
    Dylan Parry, Sep 11, 2003
    #11
  12. bubipoo

    Headless Guest

    rf wrote:

    >It also narrows the playing field considerably, does it not?
    >Transparency --> gifs


    Effectively png's offer the same cross browser compatible options as
    gif's with regard to transparency (limited to 256 colours).

    >I don't use PNG's anyway. jpegs and gifs are enough.


    Pity, non transparent png's have the advantage of not being restricted
    to 256 colours, and you get lossless compression at 24 bit.


    Headless

    --
    Email and usenet filter list: http://www.headless.dna.ie/usenet.htm
    Headless, Sep 11, 2003
    #12
  13. bubipoo

    Tom J Guest

    "EightNineThree" <> wrote in message
    news:bjpjpt$2oq$...

    > png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
    > a) supports transparency
    > b) is very light
    > c) supports photo quality
    >
    > Someone else here may be able to give better info on PNG, but it wasn't well
    > supported until relatively recent browser versions.
    > With the rate of browser/ OS upgrade, I think PNG is safe to use unless your
    > target user is using old browsers.


    Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers because they don't support it.
    Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers that do support it, because they
    wouldn't wait around for the page to load. If a page doesn't load in around
    30 seconds at 52k it's too slow. The majority of viewers are still on
    dial-up.
    I use thumbnails and then have each photo on a separate page for those that
    want to see the larger photo.

    Tom J
    Tom J, Sep 11, 2003
    #13
  14. bubipoo

    Chris Morris Guest

    "Tom J" <> writes:
    > Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers because they don't support it.


    No. The browsers that support GIF but don't support PNG [1] are
    incredibly rare. Netscape 3 or earlier, Mosaic, early Internet
    Explorer (4 and above are fine). In other words, browsers that are
    almost extinct, and getting rarer.

    > Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers that do support it, because they
    > wouldn't wait around for the page to load.


    PNG is smaller than GIF except in a few limited cases (small image
    with <= 16 colours). If you use PNG as a JPEG replacement then you
    will get this problem, but PNG isn't intended as a JPEG replacement.

    > If a page doesn't load in around 30 seconds at 52k it's too slow.


    True, though if it doesn't load in 10 seconds at that speed it's too slow.

    [1] There are a lot of browsers that don't support PNG, but most of
    them don't support any other type of image apart from displaying the
    alt attribute as text.

    --
    Chris
    Chris Morris, Sep 11, 2003
    #14
  15. Leif K-Brooks, Sep 11, 2003
    #15
  16. "Tom J" <> wrote in message
    news:q%08b.137501$...
    >
    > "EightNineThree" <> wrote in

    message
    > news:bjpjpt$2oq$...
    >
    > > png is quickly coming up as the format of choice because it:
    > > a) supports transparency
    > > b) is very light
    > > c) supports photo quality
    > >
    > > Someone else here may be able to give better info on PNG, but it wasn't

    well
    > > supported until relatively recent browser versions.
    > > With the rate of browser/ OS upgrade, I think PNG is safe to use unless

    your
    > > target user is using old browsers.

    >
    > Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers because they don't support it.
    > Using PNG would lose 1/2 the browsers that do support it, because they
    > wouldn't wait around for the page to load. If a page doesn't load in

    around
    > 30 seconds at 52k it's too slow. The majority of viewers are still on
    > dial-up.


    First, PNG images are able to compress smaller, much like gif.
    Second, its actually 8-15 seconds when people bail out.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 11, 2003
    #16
  17. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    message news:ZD28b.8543$2.webusenet.com...
    > rf wrote:
    >
    > > I have a roo,
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg [38K]
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.gif [65K]

    >
    > How did you create the PNG?


    Er, MS Image Composer (yeah I know but it comes with my system).

    > I got it down to 33KB.
    > http://ecritters.biz/roo.png


    Not bad. There is a noticible difference in image quality though, expecially
    colour (the orange bits).

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 11, 2003
    #17
  18. bubipoo

    Mark Parnell Guest

    rf wrote:
    > "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    > message news:ZD28b.8543$2.webusenet.com...
    >> rf wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]

    >>
    >> I got it down to 33KB.
    >> http://ecritters.biz/roo.png

    >
    > Not bad. There is a noticible difference in image quality though,
    > expecially colour (the orange bits).
    >


    I noticed that, but it certainly isn't 7 1/2 times worse. You could
    probably find a happy median in there somewhere. Probably still bigger than
    the jpg, but definitely smaller than your png. :)

    --

    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Sep 12, 2003
    #18
  19. bubipoo

    rf Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:3f611cd5$0$23614$...
    > rf wrote:
    > > "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    > > message news:ZD28b.8543$2.webusenet.com...
    > >> rf wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.png [245K]
    > >>
    > >> I got it down to 33KB.
    > >> http://ecritters.biz/roo.png

    > >
    > > Not bad. There is a noticible difference in image quality though,
    > > expecially colour (the orange bits).
    > >

    >
    > I noticed that, but it certainly isn't 7 1/2 times worse. You could
    > probably find a happy median in there somewhere. Probably still bigger

    than
    > the jpg, but definitely smaller than your png. :)


    I'll admit I was a little startled when it came up that big. Image
    composer(*) gives me no options to change anything for a PNG. It just saves
    it. Same with gif's. Can't flatten them at all. Have to take them somewhere
    else for that :-(

    (*) Not a very smart program. What you'd expect from a Microsoft give-away
    but it's all I have. If I want serious artwork done I farm it out :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 12, 2003
    #19
  20. rf wrote:

    > (*) Not a very smart program. What you'd expect from a Microsoft give-away
    > but it's all I have. If I want serious artwork done I farm it out :)


    You could at least get the GIMP!
    Leif K-Brooks, Sep 12, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian Candy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,159
    Janaka
    Feb 18, 2004
  2. Andy
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    6,254
    Roedy Green
    May 10, 2004
  3. shannon
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    8,594
  4. anya
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    23,047
    Ben Finney
    May 29, 2006
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,248
    Mick White
    Apr 19, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page