• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.