1 Comments
- cbdgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1theres 3 things that I think he neglected to addressees in his article.
first thing being the rendering times of saving as well as displaying the images, png may look like the beset in size and quality, however depending on the content, it takes longer. I did some testing on a 5000*5000 color band image and png took 24 seconds to save and output a 12mb file from original being 47mb. I also tested the saving time of jpg and the same image saved as a jpg with no color sampling in 6 seconds and 8mb.
He also neglected to test some of the options in the different file type saving. for example i test jpg saving and it does introduce quite a bit of artifacts. However if you disable color sampling it saving with virtually no artifacts but at the cost of a slightly high size ( depending on the content).
third thing being, he did not really talk about the content of the images. he seemed to just cover picture which if you are just dealing with pictures then i guess the contents gonna be about the same complexity. on my 5000x5000 color band test fore example jpg was actually smaller than the png and looked exactly the same, even when zoomed in at 900%.


What is Digg?
Check out the new & improved