RobinOberg opened this issue on Jan 21, 2002 ยท 7 posts
RobinOberg posted Mon, 21 January 2002 at 3:40 AM
png is often smaller then gif. and most times smaller then jpg. it has support for an alpha channel. it represents images better for people with 16bit colourdepth. it has a lossless compressiontechnique(you dont loose any information whatsoever, the image looks exactly as intended) but in larger sizes this format can be huge in filesize speaking, so there may have to be a size limit to this format, like 300kb or something. the reason i request this is because it would be great for thumbnails(try saving in png yourself), sometimes its great as a final image aswell, depending on how much the jpeg compression destroys the image)
rcook posted Mon, 21 January 2002 at 8:42 AM
Some browsers still don't fully support the PNG filetype. That's why we haven't allowed its use on Renderosity. And like you said, since this is a lossless format, larger resolutions with high bit-depths can lead to very large filesizes. Russell
RobinOberg posted Tue, 22 January 2002 at 2:44 AM
But isnt it up to the poster to choose what target group they are aiming their art to? If I know that those that look on my art have support for png, but they have slow connections(Im very good at optimizing png images and wouldnt allow anything over 200kb to be posted) shouldnt I be able to post png? Sorry, I started with a suggestion and it turned to a discussion, not my intention...
rcook posted Tue, 22 January 2002 at 12:43 PM
If it were your art site, you could target any audience you please. But we have to make sure we are the most compatible we can be with nearly 80,000 members and at least as many anonymous surfers. When images don't show up for the members, it reflects poorly on the aritst and on Renderosity. For now, not supporting PNG in the galleries is the best choice. Russell
RobinOberg posted Thu, 24 January 2002 at 3:00 AM
There is no need to be upset. I was only giving a friendly suggestion that i feel would benefit this site. Forget i even tried... :)
rcook posted Thu, 24 January 2002 at 10:14 AM
Not upset at all. :) Sorry if it came across that way. Not my intention at all. Just being "matter of fact" as to why, for now, we can't allow PNG's. It was certainly a very reasonable request and question. :) Keep 'em coming! Russell
duanemoody posted Thu, 31 January 2002 at 12:13 PM
A few points about .PNG: It was never developed to compete with JPEG for hi-depth images and the PNG FAQ makes a point that file compression is not even comparable. PNG was meant to replace GIF once Unisys patented the compression algorithm it uses and required developers to get licenses. Browser makers have been reluctant to support PNG because it currently has multiple dialects and no governing committee or a Linus Torvalds to rein them in. OTOH if your browser has the QuickTime plugin you can view most PNGs with little difficulty. Special features like the alpha channel may not be supported, however. When PNG coalesces into a stable format, browsers will be certain to support it natively.