To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
PNGs can be very small to when compressing pictures with small amount of colours. I've just checked that 1024x768 picture with 5 random colours compressed to 100KB GIF and 150KB PNG. It's probably the best format for application screenshots, preserves detail and compresses big single-colour areas perfectly. It gets pretty big with photos though but that's to be exepected with loseless compression.
//GIFs are better for images with large areas with few colors (things like logos) because they can be made insanely small with no distortion. //
I take it you mean small as in file size, as oppsed to small as in area.
For most purposes that suit GIF eg: "images with large areas with few colors (things like logos)", a better option is perhaps SVG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svg
SVG graphics can be scaled, and they can be animated. They can even be interactive.
"SVG allows three types of graphic objects:
* Vector graphic shapes (e.g. paths consisting of straight lines and curves, and areas bounded by them)
* Raster graphics images / digital images
* Text "
"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is an XML markup language for describing two-dimensional vector graphics, both static and animated, and either declarative or scripted. Images can contain hyperlinks using outbound simple XLinks."
"SVG drawings can be dynamic and interactive."
The best bit about SVG is that "It is an open standard created by the World Wide Web Consortium."
The disappointing thing is, Vista does not support SVG rendering.
Edited 2007-01-30 01:14






Member since:
2006-01-23
GIFs are better for images with large areas with few colors (things like logos) because they can be made insanely small with no distortion.
JPGs are better for pictures and images with gradients and shading.