File :-(, x, )
Why .PNG? Anonymous
Why are there .PNG wallpapers? Don't they just take up more space? If they are better, then why is the majority still .jpg?
>> Anonymous
I'd like to know as well. I always have to convert them to jpegs all the time. Stupid bitches.
>> Anonymous
because you suck
>> Anonymous
bump
>> Anonymous
On Windows, when you apply a PNG as a wallpaper the shadow behind icon labels will be replaced with the old block of colour.

Unless the creator has used Macromedia Fireworks to add actual vector data to the image, they should be in JPG.

People are just dumb.
>> Anonymous
>>374115
PNG is better for some kinds of picture, and can actually take up less space for better results. However, it's really only pictures with large areas of solid colour, such as vector traces, that this is the case for. For most other things, high quality JPEG doesn't look any worse and gets a much better filesize.
>> sage
sage
>> Anonymous
JPEG artifacts, thats why.
>> Anonymous
.png is a lossless format. It still retains every shade of color, whereas .jpg will group similar shades(determined by the quality setting) by determining them as 'blocks'.
>> Anonymous
Best uses for each type for file:
.png for vectors or other high color depth line art (or for high bit depths with transparency)
.jpg for real world photos, screen caps, CG art, or similar
.gif for line art (depreciated in favor of .png)
>> Anonymous
That movie sucked.
>> Anonymous
In general PNG is superior for artwork with high detail.

If youre bitching about space, then get a bigger hard drive.
>> Anonymous
In Windows, I would suggest converting the wallpaper you are using into bmp image. Even though the image takes considerably more space, Windows draws the bmp images considerably faster than any other types (noticable especially when alt+tabbing) in addition to the fact that other types can only be used if active desktop is enabled, which just wastes memory.
>> Anonymous
>On Windows, when you apply a PNG as a wallpaper the shadow behind icon labels will be replaced with the old block of colour.

This is just plain wrong, unless you're using an antique version of windows.

Unless Vista is worse than XP in that respect, which really wouldn't be suprising.

Anyways, .png = Lossless = Superior. File size isn't an issue.
>> Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

As you can see, the goals of the formats are different. PNG is a lossless format that compresses by storing repeated colors and such, while JPEG is lossy and compresses by applying a fourier transform and then removing information that is likely to go unnoticed.

Both formats have their pros and contras. People have mentioned that PNG performs well on vector traces, that is actually not an important benefit of PNG, since for vector images SVG is much better suited all round. No, the important pro of PNG is that it is lossless, so if you intend to do any post-processing with the image the results are likely to be better.

JPEG files on the other hand, even at compression levels where no artifacting is visible, are much smaller than PNG files. Which means that in the same space you can actually store a better JPEG because you can up the resolution. The information to storage space ratio is almost always better for JPEG.

So what do you want to use? Well, that depends on your priorities. For wallpapers, which are not intended for post-processing (otherwise people would ship the original layers and vector art along as well) JPEG is in most cases the better choice, especially for people who have a large collection, for example because they use a wallpaper rotation utility or put their wallpapers in their screensaver. But for things like original scans, PNG may be the better choice.

Also, as a last note that doesn't really apply to wallpapers, PNG provides native transparency. If you want that effect with JPEG you have to use a separate JPEG for the transparency mask, which is what a lot of computer games do.
>> Anonymous
Sometimes, when I set a .png file as my new wallpaper, it shows up black. I have no idea why, as it seems to happen to only SOME of the png wallpapers I have.

Could someone tell me what's up?
>> Anonymous
You need to consider getting yourself some paintings instead of monitor if you notice JPEG artifacts in your wallpaper.
>> Anonymous
>>374264
You need to consider getting a glasses if you can see artifacts in some jpeg wallpapers
>> Anonymous
>>374265
more like get glasses / a decent monitor / both if you HAVEN'T ever seen jpeg artifacts

also lossless > lossy, if you need to whine about every single megabyte you should stop using computers already
>> Anonymous
>>374115
Anyone got a version of this WP that doesn't have the text on it?
>> Anonymous
>>374117
u convert them from png to jpg on mspaint right? if so u are failing so fucking hard
>> Anonymous
>>374307
or better yet, a version without jpeg artifacts

see the red/bue flames thing on his chest for example
>> Anonymous
Point being, its best to upload/download png because you will have the highest quality image possibe. You can then degrade it to jpg if you so choose to afterwards.
>> Anonymous
in JPG the color red is especially susceptible to artifacting. Just a flaw in the JPG algorithm I guess.
>> Anonymous
>>374390
u cant have ferraris on jpg XD
>> Anonymous
since it's more or less in the discussion, why aren't animated gif walls animated in vista? (They worked under XP...)
>> Anonymous
>>374437

Because Vista sucks in every way possible. ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>374268
It's not so much that people whine about every single megabyte, it's just that some people prefer to put their megabytes to the best use possible. If you want to buy an extra harddisk, go ahead, I'm not keeping you. But don't tell other people what they should and shouldn't do, because it's their life, and their decision.
>> Anonymous
>>374485
ur gay and u know it
>> Anonymous
>>374437
also vista got rid of the windows picture and fax viewer and replaced it with one that didnt show ani gifs and didnt smooth images
>> TylerDurdan !U8CNavXNE2
Now listen here, fuckers. Learn the difference between JPG and PNG ALREADY.

- JPEG (pronounced jay-peg) is a most commonly used standard method of lossy compression for photographic images.

- PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a losslessly compressed bitmap image format.

PNG is supposed to substitute GIF format, not JPG format you motherfuckers. For GIF, read "DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS, ICONS, etc" with a tiny palette. PNG IS LIKE A GIF WITH 65K COLOR, DUH.

So stoping saving your shitty PHOTOGRAPHS in PNG. IT WILL NOT IMPROVE THE QUALITY AT ALL, NOR WILL MAKE YOU LOOK COOL OR INDIE.
>> Anonymous
oh come on, a wallpapers / few wallpapers are going to make you buy an extra hard drive? don't make me laugh.
I have about 26k wallpapers and they take like 15GB of space, always saved in PNG and higher res when possible, not that a big deal to buy another hard disk srsly.
Also let me doubt you have so many (or more) wallpapers so you would need another drive
>> Anonymous
>>374485

But it's because some people make the decision to convert walls to an inferior format (Or lower resolution, but that's a whole other can of worms), and then distribute them further that the higher quality versions of the walls become harder to find.
>> Anonymous
>So stoping saving your shitty PHOTOGRAPHS in PNG. IT WILL NOT IMPROVE THE QUALITY AT ALL

except when converting from raw, or when saving an edited jpeg, to avoid recompression
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I think this would be best demonstrated with actual images.
Lets first take the .png format, notice a nice and clean gradient.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Now the .jpg notice the quite ugly gradient, it appears to have edges.

Now what would you rather see in your wallpapers?
>> Anonymous
>>374947
>>374949

i don't think this argument works when you've saved the JPEG on top quality...
>> Anonymous
>>375108
If I hadn't people would just have whined about that, if you can't see any difference, then it doesn't matter to you cause you are practically blind anyways.
>> Anonymous
>>375108
it does, because you can still see the difference (well for this one i had to tilt my display a little)
>> Anonymous
I can see the difference because I'm looking for it... but I'd never see it in everyday use really
>> Anonymous
>>375183
yeah, exactly, to see it on an LCD i had to tilt my monitor and be intentionally looking for it. it's a shame there are people on 4chan looking so hard for quality when the board is definitely the last place you'd find it.
>> Anonymous
>>374538

PNG is supposed to supplant GIF, since once upon a time there were some legal issues with GIF - its was not originaly an open standard like JPEG and PNG.

And everyone saying JPEG is better.

For most. Simply because it's a lossy format doesn't mean a file will take up less space. For some things, and some of the WPs I have from here are amoung them, will simply always be smaller as a PNG!
>> Anonymous
PNGs are a stupid format to save for use on a wallpaper.

The only time I use PNGs is when im exporting a vector image from Illustrator for printing at a high dpi on paper sizes bigger than A5.
>> Anonymous
I still don't understand how .png was supposed to replace .gif when it doesn't support any animation at all...
>> Anonymous
>>375842
i think there was a type of animated png