Subject:
|
Re: Switching from BITMAP/JPEG to PNG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.inst
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:07:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2796 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:37:48PM +0000, Jake McKee wrote:
> I don't necessarily object because I can completely see where you are coming
> from. I will say though that recently in working with PNG in Photoshop, the
> PNG images took MUCH longer for Photoshop to deal with them. I'm not sure
> what was going on, but they took far long longer to open and to process than
> their direct JPG and BMP equivalents.
That's because your machine needed to uncompress the PNG (unlike BMPs),
and it had more information in it than a JPG, I believe.
> I also noticed that the BMPs seem to
> compress down to almost nothing when Zipped, but the PNGs remain quite
> large. (Important when you have limited hard drive space and are rendering
> at print quality!)
BMPs are not compressed on disk - which is why they are huge to begin
with, and compress to very very small. A PNG is already compressed, so
zipping it doesn't do much more - compressing a compressed file is
usually futile.
If possible, I'd think keeping JPG support in addition to PNG would be
best - but if I had to choose between the two, I'd take PNG.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Switching from BITMAP/JPEG to PNG
|
| (...) I don't necessarily object because I can completely see where you are coming from. I will say though that recently in working with PNG in Photoshop, the PNG images took MUCH longer for Photoshop to deal with them. I'm not sure what was going (...) (22 years ago, 28-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.inst)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
