broken link for the jpg
I don't know how fast the back propagate of JPEG versions is going.
Just use the PNG.
Just use the PNG.
excuse me, but.. what is better, jpeg or png?
i rly don't know the difference... =/
i rly don't know the difference... =/
Generally, the PNG. JPEG is lossy compression (though if I recall, there is a lossless JPEG format out there...).
PNG is Lossless, so you get full quality. Also, if you see an option for both on this site, the PNG is the original file. The JPEG is a converted image created by the server.
PNG is best for drawings. JPEG is geared more to Photography and is only good as a source/original file you never save over, as each time you save to it via JPEG, you lose image quality with each save generation. PNG doesn't have this "generation degradation" problem since it's completely lossless.
PNG is Lossless, so you get full quality. Also, if you see an option for both on this site, the PNG is the original file. The JPEG is a converted image created by the server.
PNG is best for drawings. JPEG is geared more to Photography and is only good as a source/original file you never save over, as each time you save to it via JPEG, you lose image quality with each save generation. PNG doesn't have this "generation degradation" problem since it's completely lossless.
JPEG is near lossless if you set your ratio to 99 or 100% quality.
Kona's converter uses 95-100% quality
Kona's converter uses 95-100% quality
It's still lossy though ^_^
I'd only used JPEG for LARGE (e.g. scans)or exceptionally complex looking images (e.g. anything with a large color range or gradients) where filesize could be a problem for PNG.
Anyway, I'm still considering doing a basic technical article for the FAQ regarding file formats and other digital image editing terms.
I'd only used JPEG for LARGE (e.g. scans)or exceptionally complex looking images (e.g. anything with a large color range or gradients) where filesize could be a problem for PNG.
Anyway, I'm still considering doing a basic technical article for the FAQ regarding file formats and other digital image editing terms.
They are both good as long as you keep the .jpeg at 100%.
Visually, yes. But I'm more concerned about the generation degradation most people aren't aware of or factor in when editing an image multiple times over several sessions. (Depending on the program, single session, multiple edits/saves should be fine: the program should still be using the original working data in RAM until you close the file and re-open it later.)
I believe we're talking about the image in general. So I answered Hiruma's question. I see no need to take the discussion to that extent in the comment section.
I'll say it again. Both of them are good as long as you keep the .jpeg one at 100% quality. There is no important difference between them. That's all.
I'll say it again. Both of them are good as long as you keep the .jpeg one at 100% quality. There is no important difference between them. That's all.