As far as IE is concerned, they can make it super-fast and super-efficient and super-secure, but it's STILL horribly broken as far as standards support goes, and therefore quite deserving of scorn. Scorn, scorn, scorn! A pox on the house of IE, I say, until they commit publicly and fully to web standards (which they haven't done to this day, even the 'new' IE team).
...would be to finally switch to IPv6; that would solve a lot more problems than mucking about with HTTP. Oh yeah, that and banninating IE from the Computosphere.
I hadn't heard of that, thanks for the tip; I'll check it out.
I plan on doing some extensive testing of PNG compression issues within the next few months; when the article is ready, I'll notify the Slashdot collective (assuming it's approved, of course:).
Actually, Berners-Lee has been quoted as saying he never imagined people would hand-write HTML, but that people would use HTML editors. Unfortunately, Berners-Lee didn't foresee the horrible mess than most HTML editors (hello, FrontPage, you bastard child, I'm talking to you!) would produce. Blech.
Am I the only one who can see value in an HTML '5' that would clean up the problems with HTML 4.01, and add some easy-to-use ideas from CSS?
I'm _using_ CS (version 8) of Photoshop and ImageReady, and I still see _significant_ savings by using pngout. As far as I can tell, Photoshop CS (8) is no better at PNG compression than its predecessors.
Yes, the 'Save for Web' (ie: dropping into ImageReady) makes the colour depth change feature more accessible, but it's not much smarter than Photoshop itself as far as auto-selecting the correct colour depth. You'll often find that it'll _say_ a certain colour depth, but if you look at the colour chart, you see lots of little black squares with dots in them - indicating it hasn't *really* switched the colour depth. I've tested it - it's really NOT yet changed until you reselect the colour depth you want in the select box. Then you'll notice the colour chart will _only_ contain the colours you're actually using. If you don't know about that bug, you'll think you saved at a certain colour depth when you really didn't.
And THEN you can use pngout to really _compress_ it.
Yep. Pride in one's product is quite dead at Adobe. "If big customers asked for it" is a common excuse MS uses about IE, too. A pox on both their houses.
> Why would you want to save an image with less than 256 colors as PNG-24 when > this is precisely what PNG-8 is for?
Dude, that's what I'm _saying_. Many people don't realize that, and thus save their images with a higher palette than is necessary, and then complain that PNG doesn't compress as well as GIF. Photoshop doesn't tell you that when you save your file - you have to check the colour depth and change yourself. These same people also don't seem to use the post-creation compression tools to get the real compression benefit that can be had with PNG.
> At least 30% of the website icons I create are smaller as GIFs.
Are you compressing your PNGs with pngout or pngcrush? (pngout usually works much better) What kind of colour depth are we talking here?
Funny how little that has to do with what I was saying. The advantages of Ogg over mp3 and AAC are fairly miniscule from a feature standpoint, and are almost entirely over patent issues. The same isn't even remotely true about the GIF vs PNG debate.
'Switching' to PNG encompasses two scenarios. One is converting existing GIFs to PNGs. Pretty simple with the right tools. The second is when you create new images, save as PNG. That's WAY simple.
PNG _does_ solve problems over GIF (better compression, better transparency features for software that correctly supports it, & higher colour depth). PNG has solved those problems for _years_. PNG is not new - far from it. There's NO good reason for this format to not be fully supported by now.
Granted, many people don't encounter these problems, or don't recognize these symptoms as being caused by their image format of choice.
> Good point, but there's only so much the software can do.
True, but it seems like too many applications aren't even trying to do the things it should be _easy_ for them TO do, and that's irritating. Especially when such applications go through several generations (hello, Adobe) without any real improvements in such areas.
> Who do we blame, though? Is it the user for not knowing enough about the > format they are using? The software for not being smart enough? The format > creators for not making it simpler?
It's a bit of both user & software, I think. Formats are formats. If the problem is complex, the format will likely need to be somewhat so, as well. It's up to the software to make a simple yet powerful UI, and that's where things break down most often.
I don't think you owe anyone much of an apology, even if your code IS still being used, because my real point is that Photoshop has gone through several major revisions since they first started supporting PNG, and even if they started out using your PNG code, they certainly should have had any problems fixed multiple versions ago. Don't sweat it.
> only posers that code only for the bleeding edge pan the old tricks > do you get the point I am making?
Yep, I do. People like YOU are posers. CSS is hardly 'bleeding edge.' People like YOU are what's holding back 4-year-old standards from becoming requirements. The point you're making is that you're a shortsighted idiot with little real comprehension of the impact of the things you do.
True, but the size of a 1px PNG is not that much larger than a 1px GIF. A 1px PNG can get down to 106 bytes. Not really worth bothering with GIF just for that, IMO.
That's interesting info that I hadn't heard before. Nevertheless, properly-saved & compressed PNGs are still almost always smaller, if not much smaller, than their GIF counterparts. Just think how much better it would be if those issues were addressed. That'd be nice. Maybe time for a refresh of PNG, and hopefully once the software-makers implement that, they can finally implement the now four-year-old JPEG2000 standard. *sigh*
> The patent expired, so there's no real objection to using GIF anymore.
The patent problems with GIF were far from the only objections to GIF. I'm not returning to GIF now that they're gone - PNG is simply superior in every reasonable way for my needs. I'd just like Adobe & MS to fix their broken software so life is a bit easier. Returning to GIF isn't going to solve any problems for me, or for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as IE is concerned, they can make it super-fast and super-efficient and super-secure, but it's STILL horribly broken as far as standards support goes, and therefore quite deserving of scorn. Scorn, scorn, scorn! A pox on the house of IE, I say, until they commit publicly and fully to web standards (which they haven't done to this day, even the 'new' IE team).
No, really, think about it - you could use a different font for each word in the document, then embed each full font in there. That'd totally rawk!
I agree, though - lots of uncompressed TIFFs are a good thing, too.
And then people can quote the existing PDF stuff, and add one line (with an entirely new font) that just says, 'I Agree.'
We'll make good use of that new Verizon fiber to the premesis bandwidth, no problemo!
I want FTMF - Fiber To My Fingers!
That topic should've been changed to 'PDF To Yo Momma'
Sorry, my bad.
...would be to finally switch to IPv6; that would solve a lot more problems than mucking about with HTTP. Oh yeah, that and banninating IE from the Computosphere.
Dude, that wouldn't waste enough bandwidth - I say we make them all PDFs with embedded fonts (FULL fonts), and lots of graphics.
No way, punk, use DOSSHELL!
Well, keep in mind they won't be any good at all until at least v3.1. :)
That's pretty nutty stuff.
Actually, I've often seen stories impartial about MS on MSNBC - it always surprises me. *shrug*
You want the biased news, you go with the FOX. Woof.
I hadn't heard of that, thanks for the tip; I'll check it out.
:).
I plan on doing some extensive testing of PNG compression issues within the next few months; when the article is ready, I'll notify the Slashdot collective (assuming it's approved, of course
Actually, Berners-Lee has been quoted as saying he never imagined people would hand-write HTML, but that people would use HTML editors. Unfortunately, Berners-Lee didn't foresee the horrible mess than most HTML editors (hello, FrontPage, you bastard child, I'm talking to you!) would produce. Blech.
Am I the only one who can see value in an HTML '5' that would clean up the problems with HTML 4.01, and add some easy-to-use ideas from CSS?
The vast majority of images I create for web use are under 3K, and I still see savings by using PNG and compressing with pngout.
I'm _using_ CS (version 8) of Photoshop and ImageReady, and I still see _significant_ savings by using pngout. As far as I can tell, Photoshop CS (8) is no better at PNG compression than its predecessors.
Yes, the 'Save for Web' (ie: dropping into ImageReady) makes the colour depth change feature more accessible, but it's not much smarter than Photoshop itself as far as auto-selecting the correct colour depth. You'll often find that it'll _say_ a certain colour depth, but if you look at the colour chart, you see lots of little black squares with dots in them - indicating it hasn't *really* switched the colour depth. I've tested it - it's really NOT yet changed until you reselect the colour depth you want in the select box. Then you'll notice the colour chart will _only_ contain the colours you're actually using. If you don't know about that bug, you'll think you saved at a certain colour depth when you really didn't.
And THEN you can use pngout to really _compress_ it.
I'm sure it _does_ reduce the efficiency, but the palette reduction seems to more than make up for it in my experience.
Yep. Pride in one's product is quite dead at Adobe. "If big customers asked for it" is a common excuse MS uses about IE, too. A pox on both their houses.
> Why would you want to save an image with less than 256 colors as PNG-24 when
> this is precisely what PNG-8 is for?
Dude, that's what I'm _saying_. Many people don't realize that, and thus save their images with a higher palette than is necessary, and then complain that PNG doesn't compress as well as GIF. Photoshop doesn't tell you that when you save your file - you have to check the colour depth and change yourself. These same people also don't seem to use the post-creation compression tools to get the real compression benefit that can be had with PNG.
> At least 30% of the website icons I create are smaller as GIFs.
Are you compressing your PNGs with pngout or pngcrush? (pngout usually works much better) What kind of colour depth are we talking here?
Funny how little that has to do with what I was saying. The advantages of Ogg over mp3 and AAC are fairly miniscule from a feature standpoint, and are almost entirely over patent issues. The same isn't even remotely true about the GIF vs PNG debate.
:)
Nice try, though; you'd make a good politician.
'Switching' to PNG encompasses two scenarios. One is converting existing GIFs to PNGs. Pretty simple with the right tools. The second is when you create new images, save as PNG. That's WAY simple.
PNG _does_ solve problems over GIF (better compression, better transparency features for software that correctly supports it, & higher colour depth). PNG has solved those problems for _years_. PNG is not new - far from it. There's NO good reason for this format to not be fully supported by now.
Granted, many people don't encounter these problems, or don't recognize these symptoms as being caused by their image format of choice.
> Good point, but there's only so much the software can do.
True, but it seems like too many applications aren't even trying to do the things it should be _easy_ for them TO do, and that's irritating. Especially when such applications go through several generations (hello, Adobe) without any real improvements in such areas.
> Who do we blame, though? Is it the user for not knowing enough about the
> format they are using? The software for not being smart enough? The format
> creators for not making it simpler?
It's a bit of both user & software, I think. Formats are formats. If the problem is complex, the format will likely need to be somewhat so, as well. It's up to the software to make a simple yet powerful UI, and that's where things break down most often.
I don't think you owe anyone much of an apology, even if your code IS still being used, because my real point is that Photoshop has gone through several major revisions since they first started supporting PNG, and even if they started out using your PNG code, they certainly should have had any problems fixed multiple versions ago. Don't sweat it.
> only posers that code only for the bleeding edge pan the old tricks
> do you get the point I am making?
Yep, I do. People like YOU are posers. CSS is hardly 'bleeding edge.' People like YOU are what's holding back 4-year-old standards from becoming requirements. The point you're making is that you're a shortsighted idiot with little real comprehension of the impact of the things you do.
Do you know if it compresses as well as pngout? If not, it might be easier to add that to pngout.
True, but the size of a 1px PNG is not that much larger than a 1px GIF. A 1px PNG can get down to 106 bytes. Not really worth bothering with GIF just for that, IMO.
That's interesting info that I hadn't heard before. Nevertheless, properly-saved & compressed PNGs are still almost always smaller, if not much smaller, than their GIF counterparts. Just think how much better it would be if those issues were addressed. That'd be nice. Maybe time for a refresh of PNG, and hopefully once the software-makers implement that, they can finally implement the now four-year-old JPEG2000 standard. *sigh*
> The patent expired, so there's no real objection to using GIF anymore.
The patent problems with GIF were far from the only objections to GIF. I'm not returning to GIF now that they're gone - PNG is simply superior in every reasonable way for my needs. I'd just like Adobe & MS to fix their broken software so life is a bit easier. Returning to GIF isn't going to solve any problems for me, or for most people.