Posted by Vince Morgan on 12/18/06 00:57

"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4um2u4F18hqdnU1@mid.individual.net...
> Vince Morgan wrote:
> >
> > PNG images have been around for a long time now and are well supported.
> > They offer good, truely lossless compression.
>
> PNG is not really suitable for all image types, at least not for web
> images. It is ideal for vector art, pictures of text, and anything else
> with a limited number of colors or when transparency is needed. It is
> not really suitable for photos or art work with a lot of gradient colors.
>
I just tested a full color, highly saturated photo. The PNG was about 40%
larger than a relatively lossless JPG, so you are certainly correct.

> > They can also have an alpha channel, though there is little support for
this
>
> Actually, there is very good support for png alpha channel. IE is the
> only "modern" browser that doesn't support it, at least not natively.
>
Unfortunately, the number of browsers that are IE is very much in the
majority.
It would be a lot better for everyone if this were not the case IMHO, but
for the time being it's the unfortunate reality.
> > In most cases they even compress better than a JPG
>
> Not true. A photo in png will probably weight several times more than in
> jpg format.
>
Are photos the majority of images on the net? Though, with all due respect
the OP is using photos, and I was directing my reply toward him, so my point
is mute :)
> --
> Berg
regards,
Vince

[Back to original message]