(01/09/2010 04:54 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Not only PNG, I dislike lossless on a whole.  Lossless pretty much screams waste, and the more complicated the medium, the more waste.  And no normal human can tell the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless anyway, under normal circumstances.

That's just merely your opinion of things really.  Lossy is only as good as the algorithm, and I can certainly say that algorithms are nowhere near perfect and there are probably many examples of them totally failing (JPEG fails quite hard on simple or high detail *clean* CG content for example).
Besides, it has applications more than just for viewing.  Ever tried Photoshopping a JPEG?  Upscaling is also easier when you don't have to worry about all the noise of JPEG. (hq3x low res CG :P)  And people pay for perfection.

(01/09/2010 04:54 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Which is useless for everything besides for some very limited applications (and for those, you may as well use goddamn RGBA).

Don't be silly.  A format gives capabilities.  It's up to the user and application to properly use them.

(01/09/2010 04:54 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Really, have you ever even seen a 64bit image?  I mean 99% of the stuff wee get these days are 24bit or 32bit "true color".

The eye cannot distinguish more than 24bit colour (no alpha), however, as mentioned earlier, there may be more applications than for simply viewing.  Image manipulation may make use of it, and various other things (eg imaginary colours or colours which exceed defined limits, eg a whiter white).

(01/09/2010 04:54 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Also, in the comparison, I certainly did not use 64bit, so the results aren't skewed.

You may have used 32bit, which means an unused alpha channel.
Are your BMPs 24bit?
JPEG uses something like YUV, which obviously can't be used for a (truly) lossless format.

(This post was last modified: 01/09/2010 05:18 PM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)