THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 12:37:07 PM

Title: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 12:37:07 PM

Whoa. The difference is DRAMATIC.

(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/T-234/RAM-1.jpg)


VS


(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/T-234/RAM.png)

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: WrikaWrek on November 24, 2008, 12:45:13 PM

(http://i38.tinypic.com/25q67fp.jpg)

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: Don Flamenco on November 24, 2008, 12:49:33 PM

those are the same pic  ???

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 12:52:57 PM

Quote from: WrikaWrek on November 24, 2008, 12:45:13 PM

(http://i38.tinypic.com/25q67fp.jpg)

:piss 256 colors :piss2

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 12:54:15 PM

Quote from: Kranz Fafka on November 24, 2008, 12:49:33 PM

those are the same pic  ???

No way man, check file sizes and colors.

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: MyNameIsMethodis on November 24, 2008, 12:54:31 PM

The colors are more defined on the PNG.

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: WrikaWrek on November 24, 2008, 12:58:46 PM

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH


I get it. It's not about the resources the PC is using, it's about the colors of the image. Goddamn man. Yeah, the lower one seems more vibrant.

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 01:04:16 PM

Somehow the PNG got bigger (file size) when it was uploaded to photobucket. On my machine it's at 1280x1024 and 60Kb, the JPG is 1280x1024 and 300Kb  :lol

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: Don Flamenco on November 24, 2008, 01:04:23 PM

this is the most difficult format comparison thread I've ever read. it's like a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in ass and titties

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: WrikaWrek on November 24, 2008, 01:11:05 PM

The PNG file is 250kb, the JPEg file is 100kbs......

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 01:31:19 PM

Quote

A Excel Spreadsheet Made For The Purpose of Trolling a Goddamned Structured Binary Format On a Forum On The Internet SAVE ME PROLE

Formats   Local     Photobucket
PNG        59.8Kb   250.97Kb
JPG         296Kb   101.25Kb


NOTE: The pictures on my local machine are 1280x1024, whereas the ones on Photobucket were resized to 800x640                            
ALSO NOTE: Photobucket's resizing process eats shit.

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: Fragamemnon on November 24, 2008, 01:37:43 PM

rehost or just close the thread with a "photofuckit" post.

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: T234 on November 24, 2008, 01:42:12 PM

(http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08481/ram450.png)

(http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08481/ram700.jpg)

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: Crushed on November 24, 2008, 02:19:58 PM

PNG has always been awesome.

:bow PNG :bow2

Title: Re: THE JPEG FORMAT EATS SHIT OUT OF A SEA OF 55-GALLON DRUMS OF SHIT
Post by: drew on November 24, 2008, 02:58:01 PM

 :spin