Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Rainboom Dash on image #2869733

"[@HDPlayer":](/1742613#comment_7305282
)  
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG


 
Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG


 
I'm tired of these 1000 x 1000 PNGs... I'd MUCH rather have a high-quality 2500 x 2500 jpeg for the same file size if the lower res PNG was uploaded due to wanting a low file size

"
 
[@redweasel":](/1742613#comment_7310147
)  
noise is another big thing.. sometimes noise is added to an image for artistic effect and it raises the PNG to stupidly high file sizes



 
 
Lemme post an example where I'm glad a high-res high-quality jpeg was used instead of a lower-res PNG
 
>>1783687 the higher res is REALLY nice here.. and I don't see any visible artifacting.. and I can usually spot artifacting pretty easily
 
Of course, for a lot of people just seeing 'jpeg' is a big turn-off... and it can be hard to enjoy an image even though it looks perfectly fine, I understand
 
Okay, I do actually see quite a bit of banding if I zoom way into the image in thcertain cloudparts... but for the most part the jpeg isn't that noticeable

"@HDPlayer":/1742613#comment_7305282
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG

Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG

I'm tired of these 1000 x 1000 PNGs... I'd MUCH rather have a high-quality 2500 x 2500 jpeg for the same file size if the lower res PNG was uploaded due to wanting a low file size

"@redweasel":/1742613#comment_7310147
noise is another big thing.. sometimes noise is added to an image for artistic effect and it raises the PNG to stupidly high file sizes


Lemme post an example where I'm glad a high-res high-quality jpeg was used instead of a lower-res PNG
>>1783687 the higher res is REALLY nice here.. and I don't see any visible artifacting.. and I can usually spot artifacting pretty easily
Of course, for a lot of people just seeing 'jpeg' is a big turn-off... and it can be hard to enjoy an image even though it looks perfectly fine, I understand
Okay, I do actually see quite a bit of banding if I zoom way into the image in the clouds... but for the most part the jpeg isn't that noticeable

"@HDPlayer":/1742613#comment_7305282
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG

Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG

I'm tired of these 1000 x 1000 PNGs... I'd MUCH rather have a high-quality 2500 x 2500 jpeg for the same file size if the lower res PNG was uploaded due to wanting a low file size

"@redweasel":/1742613#comment_7310147
noise is another big thing.. sometimes noise is added to an image for artistic effect and it raises the PNG to stupidly high file sizes


Lemme post an example where I'm glad a high-res high-quality jpeg was used instead of a lower-res PNG
>>1783687 the higher res is REALLY nice here.. and I don't see any visible artifacting.. and I can usually spot artifacting pretty easily
Of course, for a lot of people just seeing 'jpeg' is a big turn-off... and it can be hard to enjoy an image even though it looks perfectly fine, I understand

"@HDPlayer":/1742613#comment_7305282
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG

Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG

I'm tired of these 1000 x 1000 PNGs... I'd MUCH rather have a high-quality 2500 x 2500 jpeg for the same file size if the lower res PNG was uploaded due to wanting a low file size

"@redweasel":/1742613#comment_7310147
noise is another big thing.. sometimes noise is added to an image for artistic effect and it raises the PNG to stupidly high file sizes

"@HDPlayer":/1742613#comment_7305282
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG

Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG

I'm tired of these 1000 x 1000 PNGs... I'd MUCH rather have a high-quality 2500 x 2500 jpeg for the same file size if the lower res PNG was uploaded due to wanting a low file size

"@HDPlayer":/1742613#comment_7305282
I think redweasel ment that for the same file size a high-res high-quality jpeg is better than a low-res PNG and I agree... a lot of times the artifacts aren't even very visible with jpeg and for the same file size I'd MUCH rather have a high-res jpeg than a low-res pixelated PNG

Optimally a high-res PNG is best, yes... but I'm talking about jpeging an image for higher res for same file size as a low-res PNG