Sunday, 14 April 2013

On a slightly geeky topic - .png or .jpeg

Those who are observant and care about these things will have noticed that all the images posted recently have been .png files. I've begun using this format because it doesn't degrade the image quality, however the file sizes are a little bit bigger than a similar size 'jpeg file.

One of the image sharing sites I've used will not allow anything but .jpeg files, and it got me wondering how much difference there really was between the 2 for file size and image quality. I'd be interested in any opinions you might have.


  1. If it is a photo, then the Joint Photographics Experts Group format (JPEG) is a solid choice. You can often tweak the compression to get a much smaller file size than you started with although visible image degradation multiplies each time you resave the file. PNG files can be squashed very small IF you can index the file to only contain a limited number of distinct colours.

  2. Thanks Wulf, I guess I'm after less squashing and more quality these days, hence the lossless compression of .png.


Play nice - I will delete anything I don't want associated with this blog and I will delete anonymous comments.