.PNG Worth Converting To? - Page 2

Stumpy · 10-15-2008, 09:23 PM

Not sure if you're interested in the technical side of this, but here goes...

- GIF - supports up to 256 colors only but one of the colors they support is the transparent color. Thus you can have images that have fully-transparent pixels. The fewer colors you have the smaller the file. Compression happens by limiting the number of colors in the file

- JPG - supports (virtually) unlimited colors but does not support transparency. Thus, if want something transparent, don't use a JPG. Compression happens by by blurring the lines on images and dividing the image into visible squares.

- PNG - supports unlimited colors as well as transparency. Major benefit is support for both full transparency and partial transparency. Partial transparency is where you can see through a pixel but it still has some color. IE6 does not support it natively but there are fixes you can do to make png partial transparency work in IE6.

Overall, only use PNGs if you need partial transparency since they will nearly always be bigger files than their GIF or JPG counterparts. JPG with no compression will be identical to a PNG in terms of look if there isn't partial transparency.

Mr Jepps Se · 10-24-2008, 02:38 PM

Heh Stumpy just the info we needed.

I'll add if I may, that png's are very nice/crisp/royal images, due to pixelation support, but for game icons, it is better to use gifs... because they are smaller file sizes and you will have quite a few loading on a page.

Generally most colors of a website should be controlled with css, and really all these images loading isn't a good idea.... thus for lots of images, you should always choose gif images.

But pngs here and there for that royal effect is a good touch.

10-24-2008, 02:38 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mr Jepps Se Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 20	Heh Stumpy just the info we needed. I'll add if I may, that png's are very nice/crisp/royal images, due to pixelation support, but for game icons, it is better to use gifs... because they are smaller file sizes and you will have quite a few loading on a page. Generally most colors of a website should be controlled with css, and really all these images loading isn't a good idea.... thus for lots of images, you should always choose gif images. But pngs here and there for that royal effect is a good touch. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spending worth or not?	archgames	Webmastering	5	05-16-2008 12:39 PM

10-15-2008, 09:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
Stumpy Full Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 59	Not sure if you're interested in the technical side of this, but here goes... - GIF - supports up to 256 colors only but one of the colors they support is the transparent color. Thus you can have images that have fully-transparent pixels. The fewer colors you have the smaller the file. Compression happens by limiting the number of colors in the file - JPG - supports (virtually) unlimited colors but does not support transparency. Thus, if want something transparent, don't use a JPG. Compression happens by by blurring the lines on images and dividing the image into visible squares. - PNG - supports unlimited colors as well as transparency. Major benefit is support for both full transparency and partial transparency. Partial transparency is where you can see through a pixel but it still has some color. IE6 does not support it natively but there are fixes you can do to make png partial transparency work in IE6. Overall, only use PNGs if you need partial transparency since they will nearly always be bigger files than their GIF or JPG counterparts. JPG with no compression will be identical to a PNG in terms of look if there isn't partial transparency.