size nazism is goodsometimes...
why gif?
why not png which is even smaller in this case?
why bother to gain a few kB?
it's not about size, it's about losing image details
biatches
(,
Sun 9 Sep 2007, 6:16,
archived)
why gif?
why not png which is even smaller in this case?
why bother to gain a few kB?
it's not about size, it's about losing image details
biatches
if you've made something in paintwhich doesn't have anything copypasted from an external source, you won't lose any details saving it as a gif, cos it uses the 16 default palette colours for optimisation. you would lose more details saving it as a jpeg
the size difference between png and gif would be negligable.
it's always good to have smaller image sizes to save on bandwidth because: a) some people have slow connections (people do still use dial-up) and b) some people have limited bandwidth, and even though it's only a few kB, if everyone was making big images, and with a few reloads of the page it all adds up.
and what it is about, it the joke anyway, not the image details.
(the size difference between png and gif would be negligable.
it's always good to have smaller image sizes to save on bandwidth because: a) some people have slow connections (people do still use dial-up) and b) some people have limited bandwidth, and even though it's only a few kB, if everyone was making big images, and with a few reloads of the page it all adds up.
and what it is about, it the joke anyway, not the image details.
Spunky McPunk not dead yet,
Sun 9 Sep 2007, 7:34,
archived)