(16/03/2012 10:18 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  Yeah png is where its at!

No it isn't.

Here's an example... PNG (4074KB), FFVH (2079KB), x264lossless (1864KB) (high 4:4:4 so no chroma sub-sampling... well I admit YCbCr compresses better than RGB, but still shouldn't be nearly THAT much difference).  That's like over 100% increased efficiency.  Now I'm not suggesting that you should go compress all your images as video, that's beyond silly.  I'm just demonstrating that the technology behind PNG is outdated as fuck.

It's thinking like this that make adopting new technologies so slow, and why outdated crap like MP3 for audio and XviD for video are still the most popular formats despite the existence of much better.

(16/03/2012 10:24 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  

(16/03/2012 10:23 AM)eKusoshisut0 Wrote:  What about .bmp?

its allright, but those file sizes are intense.

Lol.

.BMP is pretty much raw RGB, that is, uncompressed image.  There's nothing to be "alright" or not about it.

(This post was last modified: 16/03/2012 10:06 PM by Assassinator.)