Miscellaneous > Programming & Networking
PNGs on the web
Pissed_Macman:
At least I'm using PNG for only 1 image. If anyone has dial-up, could they visit my site real quick and see how long it takes the title logo to load just out of curiosity?
Kintaro:
Have a look at gilpins garage in IE, then Mozilla...
www.gilpinsgarage.cjb.net
AND NO IE DOES NOT SUPPORT PNGS PROPERLY!!!
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: X11 / BOB: l33t h4x0r ]
Master of Reality:
quote:Originally posted by The Muffin Man:
Mildly OT
*Do not use PNGs too much (more than one or two on a page)*
They are too big, and will slow loading times down significantly. I used to use PNGs for most of the images on my front page and it took 97 seconds to load for a non-broadband user. I replaced them with JPGs (same visible quality) and now the site loads in 6 seconds on non-broadband and pretty much instantly on cable/dsl.
[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: The Muffin Man ]
--- End quote ---
what if you compress them? I use PNGs quite a lot and they dont seem that slow.... but then again i am usually changing them from bitmaps.
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: The Master of Reality / B0B ]
voidmain:
PNG is to JPEG as Ogg is to MP3 (morally, not physically). I use PNG quite often, although I also make heavy use of JPG. PNGs are morally right (patent free) and do have a few qualities that are better than JPG (lossless compression vs lossy compression), however JPG compression is hard to beat (lossy compression usually can be much smaller).
I suggest liberal use of PNG (but follow size/speed considerations). To hell with Microsoft and their old crappy browsers that can't support open formats.
DC:
quote:Originally posted by void main:
PNG is to JPEG as Ogg is to MP3 (morally, not physically). I use PNG quite often, although I also make heavy use of JPG. PNGs are morally right (patent free) and do have a few qualities that are better than JPG (lossless compression vs lossy compression), however JPG compression is hard to beat (lossy compression usually can be much smaller).
--- End quote ---
If there is a patent covering JPEG's or not is at least debatable, plus the guys who make it are far from morally challenged.
PNG is, at least in theory, a much better format however (there are some implementation issues - some of which can be described starting with "M"), so I'd use it instead of JPEG if possible (transparancy support is a non-issue here - JPEG doesn't have it either), just use decent compression.
IIRC, IE displays transparancy correct, but it can't use alpha blending. I could be wrong though, and I'm not in position to test it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version