View Single Post
Old 12-24-2014, 12:59 AM   #18
GrannyGrump
Obsessively Dedicated...
GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GrannyGrump ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
GrannyGrump's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,231
Karma: 35158061
Join Date: May 2011
Location: PA {back in the usa!}
Device: Sony PRS-T2, ADE on PC
Quote:
Originally Posted by blutuu View Post
Quick question. What would be the best image format to use in terms of quality? I have high quality png files, but they're really big. I reduced them to jpg files, but I feel that the quality has dipped a little bit. Basically, I want something that isn't too big and retains most of its quality.
I have found that using more than 10% -15% compression on jpegs will usually lead to artifacts and bleeding and "pixel-spitting". Of course, that means a larger file-size.

Often a 256-color png can look better than a heavily-compressed 16million color jpeg.
You would have to test and see. But 256-color pngs don't support gradients very well, so you might see banding.

If your graphics editor supports choosing the color-count reduction method, I would recommend testing 256 colors (do NOT use "web-safe" pallet, it is UGLY, even if it is smaller.). You might find a happy solution.

Good luck!
GrannyGrump is offline   Reply With Quote