PNG, BMP, JPG, TIFF or GIF?

[Rymac91 15]

I've noticed how people have always hated the .png format because it doesn't show right in IE, but it shows fine in other browsers, and it's actually smaller then most other formats, so I have to ask, which format do you like best for just on your computer(before you convert it for web use)?

I'll lists the pros and the cons of the big 4 for normal images.

BMP

Pros: Pictures don't lose quality when in this format.

Cons: Doesn't do any sort of compression, so pictures are insanely big.

JPG

Pros: Pictures are much smaller in size then other images and is compatible with all browsers and modern computers.

Cons: It loses quality when compressed and tends to not have as vibrant colors when saved with a editor comparted to other formats.

PNG:

Pros: Pictures are around the same size as JPG or smaller, can compress images without losing quality, high image quality.

Cons: It's not compatible with Internet Explorer 6 and lower(most people use IE).

GIF

Pros: It's used for animations, which none of the other formats can successfully do.

Cons: it's picture quality is not the best, and it's also not very small.

So based on this info, and what you already do, what's your favorite?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Uh... Jpeg... you can save it as an exceptional high quality when using Photoshop and its compatible with pretty much everything.

[jacqulina 162]

i prefere jpg and agree with el burro

[coolotter88 2]

hmm, jpegs are smaller than pngs by like, a lot from what i've seen, my pngs are 1 megabyte and then I convert to jif and they're like, 30 kilobytes.

but pngs are nice, the animated pngs are good too.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

I tend to keep works-in-progress in the BMP, PSP, or PSD format, as I obsessively hate pixels unpredictably being altered each time I save due to format compression, and I do sometimes like keeping some of the layers of the latter formats. At the end, however, as most of my images are for online use, they ultimately get turned into jpegs with the most minimal compression. PNGs usually work on my browser, but sometimes they don't and I haven't figured out a pattern of why or why not. While they work elsewhere for me, PNGs on the Simtropolis forums only occasionally work correctly, but typically they either show as a broken image which I have to manually load separately to display, half load and partially display before they turn into a broken image, or just outright crash the browser to desktop.

(I wonder if spa's BAT thread uses PNGs or not. That thread notoriously crashes me straight to desktop, so I can't ever safely visit to tell. Pity, as I have always liked spa's BATs.)

[SpecialEddie 3]

PNGs show on Internet Explorer, just not on the Simtropolis forums.

[Rymac91 15]

When working with paint, or making screenshots, I always save as a png over a bmp. Never as a jpg because of how paint ruins the colours.

However, when images get large, it's better to save in jpg. SC4 for some reason though actually just sucks at making png files(if you do a print screen, crop it and save it as a png in paint, it's much smaller), which is beyond me on how they managed that.

[amal81 3]

TIFF is undoubtedly the best image format out there if you are into serious image editing. Whenever I have to scan something from a book or a weekly I always use the TIFF image.

It is like a 'WAV' file of images. Fully uncompressed and 100% pure. Compression of any kind takes away the quality of an image. Whereas TIFF being an uncompressed and 'pure' format it stores the data properly there is absolutely no quality loss. TIFF images can have layers too, which is good if you are using photoshop or other such software.

The only downside for TIFF is the file size. An image of 12"x8" ~A4 size at 300 dots per inch resolution can be ~45MB, whereas the same size jpg would be ~12MB.

[Haljackey 17,441]

PNGs take up MUCH more memory than JPGs, but they are MUCH more detailed.

[coolotter88 2]

i like my images RAW

xD

"yeah, here is all the color data for each pixel, go edit the picture"

[SpecialEddie 3]

High quality JPGs ARE possible. Photoshop does an excellent job converting picture files. But for me, TIFF makes absolutely NO sense. The file sizes when scanning are just completely unneccesary.

[amal81 3]

But it is the purest form of an image. a 300 DPI TIFF is better compared to 300 DPI JPG anyday. for example an MP3 file with a bitrate of 320 Kbps will never be as good as an uncompressed WAV file.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Actually, I prefer PNG, but the files are large and there is that problem with IE which is used all over the place by the benighted.  I upload in jpeg except animations when I use GIF.

[Duke87 1,070]

SC4 for some reason though actually just sucks at making png files(if you do a print screen, crop it and save it as a png in paint, it's much smaller), which is beyond me on how they managed that.quote>

It probably uses a lower compression level. I do believe MS Paint uses 9. GIMP gives you the option of 0-9. SC4 is likely somewhere in the middle of that range.

------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to just comment on different types individually:

JPEG: Intended for photographs, and is best left to such unless some application requires things to be in this format. Using more advanced software, it is possible to get jpegs of higher quality, but it still doesn't like having large areas of the same color. In any image where you have that, the dithering can only be minimized, not eliminated. As a general rule: Never save anything in jpeg with MS paint. Ever. You'll ruin it.

BMP: Lacks compression of any sort, which means that no information is lost, but also means the filesizes get real big real fast. Should be avoided unless an application requires this format.

PNG: What I would consider best for most purposes. It uses compression, but it's efficient enough that there's never any visible loss of quality. Internet Explorer potentially has trouble with them, but I really don't consider that a downside since it's easily solved by getting a browser that doesn't suck. The filesizes are usually a bit larger than with jpegs, but not oppressively so unless you have a really large image. And this rule is by no means absolute. I've noticed that on occasion you'll end up with a jpeg that actually has a slightly larger filesize than its png equivalent. Also, it supports transparency (making parts of the image such that whatever background they're on shows through rather than the image in that particular spot).

TIFF: Another compressionless filetype. A lot of photoshop and photography buffs seam to like this one, but it still has the huge filesize issue.

GIF: Limited to 256 colors, so it's generally no good unless you've got an image with fewer colors than that, in which case you can save a lot on filesize. Like with jpeg, though, MS Paint will butcher something if you try and save in this format, so use something more advanced like GIMP or Photoshop. The one big advantage this format has, though, is the ability to do animations. It can do transparency, but not as versatile as png can. You can make one of those 256 colors transparent. With png, what's transparent is not defined by color.

SWF: Isn't a fair comparison, since it's not an image format, it's flash. Sure, you can use it to do animations in place of GIF (and if you have more than 256 colors, it's ideal), but it also supports sound, and user interaction. Thre is no image editor in existence which recognizes this format. In fact, you can't edit or create them without Macromedia's flash editor- which is a rather expensive piece of software that most people don't have. You can play them with SwiffPlayer, though, which is freeware.

And lemme go through a few others in here, too:

PSD: If you want to preserve layers in an image file, this is basically what you have to use. For general purposes, though, it's highly impractical since I don't know of any browser which can display them, and many image editors don't recognize them either. Windows explorer doesn't recognize it as an image format either, which means no thumbnail or preview- you have to open it in a compatible editor to view it.

SVG: Has the advantage of being vector based rather than pixel based, so it can be scaled up or down infinitely with no loss of quality. Has many of the same issues PSD does, though, in that a lot of stuff doesn't recognize it. If you're looking to print something high quality, it's good to have, though, since it's only li

[Boggy1 45]

PeNGuins annoy the heck out of me, even though they are lovely and lossless and have the whole alpha-channel compatability thing. They just load so so very slowly.

On the other hand, JPGiraffes are awesome when you can compress them so that they are near lossless; the GIMP, Paint.net, Photoshop, among others, support this feature very well. Microsoft Paint on the other hand...doesn't exactly have much lossless compression..if any..

[Duke87 1,070]

Slipping image formats into animal names. that's rather random.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 I approve!

[Inusion X 1]

i also approve. JPGiraffes all the way. then you don't have to change them before you upload them

[doorknob60 11]

I like PeNGuins the best, they own! I upload them as PeNGuins too, so go get Firefox! PwNaGe

[Eastwinn 6]

I stick with PNG's for all the reasons duke metioned. I think that if you can't see someone's PNG because your using IE6 or lower than you don't deserve to see it.

[bbfan02 23]

I like JPG's over anything else.

[Jasoncw 12,060]

Yeah, .jpgs for photos, .pngs for anything else.

Also, .GIFs had that whole licensing thing.