• B0rax@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 days ago

    We can ask the same the other way around: why do you want to use jpg if it results in a bigger size and worse quality than png?

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      But that’s patently untrue: take this 10 MB example TIFF file as an example.

      • PNG Compression, max compress (=quality 9):

        convert file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff -quality 9 test.png
        
      • JPG Encoding, 99% quality (=quality 99):

        convert file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff -quality 99 test.jpg
        

      Final file size comparison:

      9.7M Sep  5 13:21 file_example_TIFF_10MB.tiff
      1.7M Sep  5 13:22 test.jpg
      2.5M Sep  5 13:22 test.png
      

      PNG is significantly larger, and difference in quality between them is negligible

      • B0rax@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 days ago

        Dude. Did you even read what I wrote? PNG is bad for photos. Your example is a photo. Go ahead and try the same with a screenshot with text and menus showing.

      • ms.lane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        png - jpg

        156K Sep  5 23:06 Screenshot_20240905_230459.jpg
        137K Sep  5 23:05 Screenshot_20240905_230459.png
        

        jpg with 80% compression, via krita.

        As B0rax said, for screenshots, png is better - it can represent line graphics and text more efficiently.

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          Thanks for this. Still, I would be curious to see this for a 4K level image. Also I wonder if your screenshot tool did a bitmap copy of the screen or intrinsically converted it to PNG first before pasting it into your paint editor.