Okay! So, the difference between a jpg and a png, as I understand it, is that the way that jpgs guess at the pixels in an image, particularly when compressed a bit, lends itself well to photographs and paintings but very badly to line drawings and in particular text, basically because the 'wrong guesses' it makes become really evident. Pngs by contrast work more like gifs, detecting where wide swathes of an image are all the same colour and assigning it to them, so you vastly cut down on pixellation. This means that png photos are huuuuge, but for images like Ari's header they're basically the same size as a jpg for a vastly better image.
Here's an example (with a similar font and not the same one I'm afraid as I wasn't sure what it was) of Ari's banner as a png:
It's 17k to your 13k.
Here's a close-up of the two side-by-side:
See the dif? That's down to the different ways pngs vs jpgs calculate the areas of colour on the image.
Am I right in thinking that the one you created there, you just reopened the jpg and resaved it as a png? In that instance it just retains all the pixellation from the jpg. You need to resave the original file as a png.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-11-15 09:40 pm (UTC)Here's an example (with a similar font and not the same one I'm afraid as I wasn't sure what it was) of Ari's banner as a png:
It's 17k to your 13k.
Here's a close-up of the two side-by-side:
See the dif? That's down to the different ways pngs vs jpgs calculate the areas of colour on the image.
Am I right in thinking that the one you created there, you just reopened the jpg and resaved it as a png? In that instance it just retains all the pixellation from the jpg. You need to resave the original file as a png.