HOME | DD
13SithDeceiver13 β Long Day
#autopsy #bio #biohazard #bodies #body #cadaver #ceda #garrysmod #gmod #halflife2 #hazmat #hl #hl2 #military #suit
Published: 2018-08-19 15:36:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 3767; Favourites: 53; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
We've got more coming in. Better get started.Been a while since I've done any scene-building. This time in 8k!
Made in GMod.
Related content
Comments: 11
Me clockin out after a shift at home depot
π: 0 β©: 0
Yo convert this to Jpeg, PNG doesn't add quality and its miles slower to load and sometimes crashes chrome
π: 0 β©: 1
JPEG compresses and pixelates in zooms whereas PNG does not. Also this image is a whopping 7680x4320. You can view a 1920x1080 version here.
π: 0 β©: 1
JPEG doesn't compress and pixelate, what are you talking about?
Are you talking about the difference between a screenshot and poster?
π: 0 β©: 1
PNG is a lossless file format (retains all data for the file), JPEG is a lossy format. It compresses (thus the smaller file sizes) the image when it formats and again each time it is downloaded. In short, you lose quality in a JPEG.
www.techsmith.com/blog/jpg-vs-β¦
optimus.keycdn.com/support/pngβ¦
www.labnol.org/software/tutoriβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
JPEG hardly loses quality in the context of screenshots, it is not worth it.Β
Those articles talk about PNG in the context of logos and graphics as well with extreme examples with photos being KBs in size, not MB.
orig00.deviantart.net/580b/f/2β¦
Wheres the loss on this one?
π: 0 β©: 1
There isn't a noticeable loss of quality in your example, but that image is alsoΒ 3000Γ1638. Download and re-upload it a couple of times, or make some edits to the image and re-save it a few times, and you'll start to notice a little bit of the effects of compression. This is more noticeable in lower resolution images.
Yes those articles specifically reference smaller files, but the characteristics of JPEGs and PNGs remain the same. PNG is kind of like shooting photos or video in RAW, most of the data in the image is retained where in a JPEG (or similarly if shooting photos/video in HD or converting into MP4) it is lost to make the file smaller. PNGs are especially useful if one plans on editing the image in post-production (such as adjusting brightness, exposure, coloring, etc). In a JPEG, if I were to edit and resave the image, I would see more and more visual artifacts, especially around high-contrast areas (like contrasting colors or shadows).
I always use PNG where I can, especially when there isn't a limit to the file size. That way, I know with certainty nothing is being lost or compressed, especially if I'm uploading files to somewhere like DA or Imgur or GDrive and re-downloading them later on, and am also free to modify the image should I so choose without worrying about quality drops.
Is PNG entirely necessary for something at this resolution? Probably not, no (hell, this resolution isn't entirely necessary). Though I rarely utilize anything above 1920x1080, these 4k and 8k images I make are kind of one-offs. I have experienced some noticeable losses of quality with JPEG's around standard resolutions, like 1920x1080, so PNGs are more useful/appropriate there, which is why I use them. It's never been necessary for me to capture in or convert to JPEG, so why would I? Sure the loading times can be a little longer, but to me the higher quality is worth those few seconds. I've never come across a PNG that crashed anything, and that's across multiple systems of various ages, hardware, OSes, and browsers. Chrome is notorious for being demanding, but even then PNGs have never been an issue for me. Are they for you? It might just be this image, since it is huge at 7680x4320/41.3MB. Compare it to something like this , which is also a PNG but is only 2.8MB at 1920x1080, which is what I normally output.
π: 0 β©: 1
On Facepunch and Nebulous and various other sites PNGS are look down upon for the reason of not being able to load them on many peoples lower internet, even on slow sides when most people only look at the images, hence why JPEG is better.
"but to me the higher quality is worth those few seconds"
What higher quality? Its only worse if people are reuploading it which they shouldn't be anyway since the author will have a raw.
π: 0 β©: 1
By "higher quality" I mean in the post-production phase, with what I said about editing and transferring/uploading and re-downloading images. That's all on my own end, though, not necessarily for the viewer. I know JPEG is faster, that's its purpose. I've never uploaded/shared images to FP (or any forums, really, outside of sharing basic reaction images), so I'm unfamiliar with the process or necessities there. When I do share images to outside sources, they're usually links to here anyway.
In DA, I have never had an issue with uploading or viewing PNGs. It's the workflow that I've always had success with, so it's what I use. Like I said, it's never been necessary for me to capture in or convert to JPEG, so I've never bothered.
π: 0 β©: 1
thats fair enough tbh
π: 0 β©: 0