On Monday 24 Feb 2003 1:43 pm, Todd Slater wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:41:29PM +0000, Anne Wilson wrote: > > I thought that png was a lossless compression - am I wrong? > > > > If I start from a jpg file from my camera, 397 KB, why does saving it as > > a png come out at 2.4MB? > > > > Anne > > As a general rule of thumb, .jpg for photos, .png for computer-generated > graphics/images. As somebody else pointed out, .pngs are superior to > .jpgs for screenshots. And use .pngs to replace .gifs, typically for > web graphics (buttons, banners etc.). > > Regarding your query, lossless means bigger files. > > Todd
I had thought that it could only record what the jpg was already giving it, so had expected the compression to come out at a similar size. As an experiment I took a jpg that had been saved as a png, then saved it again as a bmp. I had thought 2.7 MB was bit, but the bmp came out at 5.5 MB, so I guess png is doing quite a good job of compression where data preservation is important. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
