Technology

34971 readers

130 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

334

Discord lowers free upload limit to 10MB: “Storage management is expensive” (www.dexerto.com)

submitted 2 months ago by moe90@feddit.nl to c/technology@lemmy.ml

141 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

JPEG for graphics like screenshots is not very efficient. For stuff like that, png is simply superior. (But not with compression 0)

PNG is not good for photos though.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

why though? The graphics represented in the screen are already squashed and scaled, so you wouldn't be preserving their quality in any case. If you're worried about text, JPEG should still be able to handle it under high quality settings

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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 5 points 2 months 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 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 months 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.