« Online Developing Services | Main | Graphics Tablets: Which Size? »
JPEG vs PNG
I have a question for the file format gurus out there. PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics, right? I thought the file sizes were supposed to be smaller than a JPEG of equal resolution. However, I exported two batches of images at the same resolution and the batch of PNGs had a filesize more than twice as large as the JPEGs.
What's wrong with this picture?
August 14, 2003 in Web/Tech | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342020c153ef00d834561ea969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference JPEG vs PNG:
Comments
Unfortunately, for all its great features, regular PNG format doesn't include compression, so its files, especially of photos, will always be bigger. The benefit is that unlike jpeg, no data is discarded when saving. Never use the jpeg to save & resave a file. Use an uncompressed format for your master file, and only save copies of it as jpeg. PNG is one uncompressed format. Tiff is more common, and PSD is proprietary to Adobe, though other programs have been taught to read it. One of the benefits to PSD is it includes a little bit of (lossless) compression resulting in smaller master files. (as long as you turn off backwards compatibility.) If you use PhotoShop for editing, .psd also stores layers better, and opens & saves a little quicker too.
Paul
Posted by: LightandDark at Aug 20, 2003 3:02:21 PM
Okay, thanks for the tips. I thought PNG was supposed to be a compressed format, but apparently not.
Posted by: Jerry at Aug 22, 2003 4:36:42 PM
