4 ms·
"...going by the insane explosion in animated GIFs in the last two years... I think folks would have stuck by JPEG if it offered transparency." That does not m
by Zirro 14y ago
"...going by the insane explosion in animated GIFs in the last two years... I think folks would have stuck by JPEG if it offered transparency."
That does not make sense as JPEG doesn't support animation. Regardless, the blurriness caused by normal JPEG-compression levels makes it a bad option for most non-photo images.
- prezjordan 14y agoI believe parent was saying PNG folks would have stuck with JPEG if it offered transparency.
- Zirro 14y agoIndeed, it seems that way after reading through it again and inserting a dot. I would still argue that images used in the layout of the average site, most of which are already prone to having transparent parts, are better off using a lossless rather than a lossy format.
- sesqu 14y agoYou're underestimating the number of non-photographic JPEG files in use despite lacking transparency. It appears a significant number of people don't care about artifacts. That said, JPEG does today support lossless compression, if you really want to go there. It sort of even supports transparency[1]. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1772760 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1772760 for a javascript solution; other approaches use container formats