3 ms·
Sure it's 33% the size of PNGs. It's 33% the quality. Am I the only person in existence who hates the "quantization" look? edit: The strength of PNGs is not ph
by onewland 16y ago
Sure it's 33% the size of PNGs. It's 33% the quality. Am I the only person in existence who hates the "quantization" look?
edit: The strength of PNGs is not photography, but images with large blocks of solid colors; screenshots, etc. That's why the example in the article didn't suffer.
- thegrossman 16y agoYou shouldn't use this JPEG-transparency hack if you're dealing with images where PNGs are a better fit. (Which is why the example demonstrated an image where PNGs aren't a good fit). "The right tool for the job" and all that jazz.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoI think you've missed the point. This is a way to get transparency in JPEG style images for less 'weight' than downloading a PNG.