At 12:54 1/02/2001 +0000, you wrote:
PNG is NOT lossy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It has better algorithm (sees
vertical pattern, while GIF sees horizontal only). PNG can do anything up
to at least 24 bit color, it uses different than LZW compression (due to
patent restrictions). Actually it is Deflate compression algorithm, same as
PKZip and Winzip. GIF is not lossy either, it was invented for different
purposes at different times. It does excellent job if used properly, like
JPEG which is not designed to handle sharp contours (try to compress text).
PNG is definitely the most universal for storage.
>Lossy:
>ie when u uncompress you get less than the original
>but much better compression
> JPG@15%: 1440 Kb
> JPG@25%: 990 Kb
> GIF: 6675 Kb
> PNG@8: 5172 Kb
>
>Note that JPG uses 24 bit colour and throws away data
>that the human eye/ brain ignores to some extent.
>GIF uses a 256 colour indexed system - for photo images
>it is terrible. PNG using 256 colour compresses smaller
>than GIF due to a more sophistcated algorithm.
>
>Conclusions (please contribute):
>TIF LZW is fine, but PNG is a lot better. Both are lossy
>but TIF has been around longer, and thus is better
>supported. PNG is realtively new, but it is open-source
>meaning that any software developer can use its code,
>which is freely available ... so if its not there then
>complain.
>
>Forget GIF. Its wayyyy too lossy for photo images. For
>low colour images (<256) it is fine, but PNG does a
>better job than GIF anyway for this type of image.
>Most browsers support JPG/GIF/PNG.
>
>PNG offers support for 8/24/48 bit colour, with better
>compression than TIF (significantly).
>
>Personally. I store in PNG format on CD, with a nice
>auto generated index.html file displaying thumbnail
>JPG images which lead to medium size 800xAAA JPG images
>and large 1400xAAA images. This gives me a full monitor
>view and a web capable view.
>
>bert
>unoffcial Filmscanners archive at:
>
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
