charlie
Skin Making
 [M0n:2225]
pwof
Posts: 758
|
Post by charlie on Nov 20, 2011 14:13:21 GMT -5
"Seeing the difference now isn’t the reason to compress with BMP. BMP uses lossless compression, while PNG is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the PNG sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 0.1 megapixel, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 0.1 megapixel on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting pngs in about 2001, and if I try to see the pictures I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 1920x1200, they look like crap. The colors are terrible, the ringing... well don’t get me started. Some of those pictures have degraded down to 640x480 or even 320x240. BMPs from the same period still look great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to BMP, you may not be able to see the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did."
It can't be. IT CAN'T BE.
cool, dry place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deadly Virus on Nov 20, 2011 15:52:35 GMT -5
Wait what. Image quality can actually degrade like that? How the fuck does this work.
|
|
|
|
Post by llllllllllll on Nov 20, 2011 16:24:18 GMT -5
Challenge. Find the oldest PNG. on this website. And show us if anything has changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by DJGrandPa on Nov 20, 2011 17:52:19 GMT -5
I couldn't see anything about it on Wikipedia, there ends my research for today, because I'm fucken tired.
I have to say it's interesting, guess it's worth to check its trustworthiness.
|
|
charlie
Skin Making
[M0n:2225]
pwof
Posts: 758
|
Post by charlie on Nov 20, 2011 19:15:15 GMT -5
Yes, because I usually keep my data is cool, dry places or else it might collect data dust and cyber-mold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gront on Nov 20, 2011 19:41:05 GMT -5
Where's this from?
|
|
|
|
Post by whereismytablet on Dec 21, 2011 17:09:05 GMT -5
I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spudmeister on Dec 21, 2011 17:47:25 GMT -5
I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to. JPEG is bad and you should feel bad. |
|
charlie
Skin Making
[M0n:2225]
pwof
Posts: 758
|
Post by charlie on Dec 21, 2011 17:51:06 GMT -5
I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to. copypasta is sarcastic though. we went through this a few years back a discovered PNG is actually great quality for it's size, just because forums limit it to jpg doesn't mean jpg is "good" |
|
|
|
Post by Icebrigade on Dec 21, 2011 18:17:22 GMT -5
Real quick tablet, I must show you something my good man. Same picture, the first png, the second jpg.   As you can see the second one has some weird artifacts everywhere in it and generally looks pretty ugly compared to the first, which is why we use other things besides it. Most of the time that other thing happens to be png. themoreyouknow.jpg irony |
|
|
|
Post by Whoface on Dec 21, 2011 20:29:30 GMT -5
I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to. There is a special spot in hell for people like you, next to the people who use TEH L33tz. |
|
|
|
Post by destructin on Dec 21, 2011 20:35:10 GMT -5
I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to. There is a special spot in hell for people like you, next to the people who use TEH L33tz. Shut up. I stick to JPG, since it's what most forums limit images to. It's better to use PNG's here, since the quality of the image doesn't suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by John12346 on Dec 21, 2011 21:47:03 GMT -5
I just looked for one of the oldest images I could find on this site. This is 10 days away from being 4 years old and it still looks fine to me:  Zoomed in, I can't see any .jpeg-ization of the image, and looking around at the other images from around that time, I can't see any .gif-ization of the colors in any of the images, either.  A prime example of images not losing any image or color quality would be me vs. Rialto from all those years ago. That entire thread is almost 4 years old, too, and all of the .pngs in there have plenty of different colors to spare, and still look exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Post by destructin on Dec 21, 2011 21:57:51 GMT -5
Ahahaha, John, it's a joke. There's no way an image can lose quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by John12346 on Dec 21, 2011 22:00:28 GMT -5
Well, some people on the Internet are very gullible, plus I was bored and wanted a nostalgia rush from looking back on old pictures, etc etc etc w/e
I think the real question is why the option to save an image as a .bmp even exists when we have .png as a clearly superior option...
|
|
Candy Biu
Skin Making
Candy fiction[M0n:120]
Sweetest of them all!
Posts: 519
|
Post by Candy Biu on Dec 22, 2011 1:30:23 GMT -5
oh god I'm scrolling past this image and something is fucking with my brain and the lines are warping all about |
|
|
|
Post by Gront on Dec 22, 2011 16:30:39 GMT -5
Okay so the reason this happens is because PNG is a smaller file than a bitmap. Hard drives, especially old ones, can corrupt bits as they spin, with the effect being much more likely to happen the longer the drive has been in operation. Since bitmaps use 24 bits per pixel, the effect will be almost invisible in most cases, and it will only effect one pixel at a time. Since one bit in the compressed PNG format describes part of a number of pixels, meaning the effect of a flipped bit will change an area of the image.
TL;DR It's a problem with the hard drive, not the format. Get a solid-state drive or something.
|
|
charlie
Skin Making
[M0n:2225]
pwof
Posts: 758
|
Post by charlie on Dec 24, 2011 16:23:50 GMT -5
BUT SSD'S ARE EXPENSIVE GRENT!
|
|
