hmm it seems that it's a bad idea to rotate an image using the windows viewer, when i did it i lost 1mb of weight so i better did it again with photoshop
What seems to be the issue exactly? I don't think there's anything wrong with this. The jpeg quality is the same in both and the file size are nearly identical.
edit: and with some programs, rotating/cropping causes the file size to be bigger than it should be. I feel like that is just unnecessary decompression though (for ex, GIMP doesn't do that with me, but Apple Preview does. Both are high quality and fine tho)
edit: and with some programs, rotating/cropping causes the file size to be bigger than it should be. I feel like that is just unnecessary decompression though (for ex, GIMP doesn't do that with me, but Apple Preview does. Both are high quality and fine tho)
He deleted the bad one. This is the one he did in photoshop.mattiasc02 said:
What seems to be the issue exactly? I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
Oh… I understand now.Zolxys said:
He deleted the bad one. This is the one he did in photoshop.
Never edit jpges or other dataloss formats, convert to a lossless one like the good old PNG instead ~
I just rotated it this time with photoshop because of that problem i had, it was strange but i guess it's Windows fault
Don't forget that we don't like PNGs with JPEG artifacts. If you need to edit a JPEG, just save it as a JPEG with the highest quality setting.Jennifer003b said:
Never edit jpges or other dataloss formats, convert to a lossless one like the good old PNG instead ~
It's better if you press "use quality settings from original image" because exporting something that was say, originally 92, to 100 will only up in file size, but do no better to the actual quality (it's what kyxor was talking about here).Zolxys said:
save it as a JPEG with the highest quality setting.
I wonder if konachan supports webp format. So far this format has the best compression results (lossy and lossless) out of all other formats. Modern browsers support for sure, but given how dated the website is, it's a good question whether scripts on the server can handle it.
+1 more sites should adopt WebP I used it many times for several "things" but I always also included a PNG version for compatibility issues...kyxor said:
I wonder if konachan supports webp format. So far this format has the best compression results (lossy and lossless) out of all other formats. Modern browsers support for sure, but given how dated the website is, it's a good question whether scripts on the server can handle it.
We don't support webp unless it happened in an update without our knowing. Using a webp as wallpaper without recompression might not be possible either.
Otherwise you'll just lower the quality even further.
*Edit: Discussion moved.
No. If you're cropping or rotating, that's not true. That is unless you're just cropping a multiple of the block size (usually 16 pixels).mattiasc02 said:
It's better if you press "use quality settings from original image"
Otherwise you'll just lower the quality even further.
*Edit: Discussion moved.