File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ITT moar dark knight images
>> Anonymous
bahmp
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282759
not hi-res, but no higher one exists, I think
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>282851
btw shitty newfag saving this pic as PNG to look cool whereas he could have had it in jpg for half the size.
>> Anonymous
>>283046
LOL, I <3 JPG ARTIFACTS RAWLFECOPTERS111111111!
>> Anonymous
>>283046

btw nigger here who cares about an extra meg over his nigger dial-up
>> Anonymous
>>283067
LOL EVERY JPG FILE HAS ARTIFACTS
>> Anonymous
^I love these dumbasses who think that every jpg file contains artifacts. Maybe if you save it in MSPaint yeah, but convert a PNG into JPG in Photoshop with the highest quality selected, and you'll get the exact same image, with a lower filesize.
>> Anonymous
NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS
>> Anonymous
Sup Niggers
>> Anonymous
>>283076

LOL NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
LOLS actually jpeg is a lossy format so whatever compression you use you WILL lose data...
>> Anonymous
>>283152
Not all jpegs lose data.
>> Anonymous
png vs jpg aside, that guy is just being a little bitch. You know how fucking annoying it is when a person shouts "I DON'T WANT TO DOWNLOAD THIS WITH RAPIDSHARE, I WANT IT VIA MEGAUPLOAD"? Well, that's basically all I hear when someone bitches that they want their png as a jpg or vice versa. Quit bitching, open up photoshop, and save the image as whatever fucking format fits your personal needs. Be thankful that you're getting anything, whether or not it suits your perfectly pampered desires.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283152

ok here's what I want you to do. I converted the PNG from above in JPG in Photoshop. Look at both these pics and TELL ME if there is a visible difference to you to the human eye. It is ex-act-ly the same fucking image. I don't care if there's a data loss which no human on earth would notice. And I'm not tallking about a 0.01% loss in quality either. There is 0.00% quality loss from this jpg I just oploaded when compared to the png version.
>> Anonymous
>>283176
now that comparison is just stupid.
The image that was posted in png most likely was
a jpg to begin with.
The differance in png only works if it was a real /HR/ picture or it was not screwed up in the first place.
Zoom into the png and the jpg and you can see the
wonderful artifacts.
( if it was originally in a lossless format one
could see the color loss in the jpg and the
artifacts near edges)
>> Anonymous
>>283153
That is correct.

(Same Fag.)
>> Anonymous
>>283196
I know, that's why I said that someone deliberatly chose to save it as a png to somehow make it seem cool or something. That pic is unnecessarily in png, while it should be a jpg, thats my whole complaint.