Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

Think I've already seen that debate somewhere on the forum... I also think that .png are a bit too big to be used on the web.

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All jpgs of every pixel size lose colors. Image size has nothing to do with color loss, except with really, really small pictures (like 20x20 pixels and smaller) because they have few colors in them to be distorted. 128x128 images lose too many colors in jpg form.

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All jpgs of every pixel size lose colors. Image size has nothing to do with color loss, except with really, really small pictures (like 20x20 pixels and smaller) because they have few colors in them to be distorted. 128x128 images lose too many colors in jpg form.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let me rephrase what I said. The way I said it was wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif What I meant to say was this: jpgs always lose colors and quality. But it is never enough to worry about. Never enough to make a image look absolutly horrible. Unless of course you resize the image down to 20x20 as you said, or way too big. But generally jpgs never distort bad enough to worry about putting pngs instead, (depends on what image is as well), as pngs take up about 2 to 3x as a jpg does, if not more.

For example: I just made a quick button about 100x20 in size, and put some text and a little drop shadow on it. I then saved it as both .png, as well as .jpg. The difference in quality? You couldn't tell the two apart. The difference in size? The .jpg was only 1.35k, while the .png was 35k. That big of size difference for no quality inhancement is not worth the bandwidth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uhh... yeah. Sorry about that ppl, I'll try to get onto it tonight. It just needs to be coloured really...

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't worry about it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'm not in any rush http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

Rags, buttons are not high quality images. Of course they are not going to look bad as jpgs. We were talking about much more detailed images like ships. Those often look bad in jpg format.

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, bad example on my part. So I'll provide you with another one. I took the Cardassian heavy carrier image and saved it as a .jpg and .png.
And just so you can't say, "Oh, it's a 128x128 image, so that doesn't count." I took the liberty of incresing the size up to 350x350. This of course made the image pixelated, but it will prove my point just the same.
The size of the .jpg image of the carrier at 350x350 pixels, was only 16kb. Not big at all.
The .png of the same image at 350x350 pixels was 95.4kb. Huge for that image.
And you know what? There is no difference in quality. If there is, which I can barely see a difference, it is not enough to make that big of a difference to use .pngs over the net instead of .jpgs. You still get the same image, same quality, at 5x less the size. This effectively reduces bandwidth usage and also the Users load time.

I highly doubt you can argue this point unless it is extreamly unbased or some other wackiness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

Increasing the image size doesn't matter once you get passed really small images (128x128 is not really small).

I never said that every single jpeg image turns out crappy. It depends on what is in the image file. A lot of ship images I have seen converted to jpegs lost a lot of image quality. It depends on how detailed the image is. The more detail, the more loss there is.

[ April 01, 2003, 01:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

Lol sorry katchoo but i guess your ship design thread has degraded into an argument of whats superior. png's or jpg's.

Well to get back on topic have you got any new images to show us, i'm really curious to see what you've done! Pleeeeeaaaaassssse

Re: Katchoo\'s Shipset Thread (aka the ungodly slow DoGa guy).
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No worries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I'm updating the website now and will make the Shipset visible. Downloadable? Not yet, but you'll be able to see how it looks so far.

Updates as they come!