« Topics
1234...114115116
bilky asko4,532 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
the eye posted:
bilky asko posted:
Here's a comparison (fortunately this is a very "faithful" recreation)

*
That's a PNG. It comes out exactly as you see it on the screen.
*
That's a JPEG.
Notice the slight halo effect and the compression artifacts - making what would be smooth colour "spotted". It's also a nightmare to edit. And, the colour is slightly different to the PNG. PNG supports alpha transparency at multiple levels too.

That's why I use PNG for everything but photos.


His TV Live logo is 100% quality, looks exactly the same as it does in PNG.

Your JPEG logo there is only 66% quality, so whatever program you use, is ****.


Incorrect. Where you can see the white speckling is where compression has taken place, so it is not the same as PNG.

*

Also, my image was not saved at 66% compression, it was saved at 75% (and it is adjustable). Don't assume things without knowing the facts. And also don't assume my program is **** (whatever childish profanity you used) without knowing what it is. And calm down, you don't need to bite my head off.

I do appreciate that making another logo is a pain in the rectum, (especially if the website is new, because the content is the priority) but PNG is something to take into account in the future. (It is a good logo, I like it. Whatever you do, keep the design)
Joe6,069 posts since 9 Oct 2005
Meridian (South) South Today
I love the way you had to recolor the background just so we could see it. Look, I really think it's fine as it is, as I cannot see any difference, at least not without opening up a graphics program, which nobody would. rob's said it won't be changing, and I agree it doesn't needto change.
bilky asko4,532 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
I didn't say it needed to change; if you read that last post I said that he should consider PNG in the future.

I only recoloured it for the eye. Which is a bit ironic, as he seems blind. I could see it was a JPEG before I checked - i find it blatantly obvious. The colours are patchy and the image seems feathery.

All I am trying to do is say that PNG is best for logos, especially if you want to edit them later. GIF is good too (it is just a simpler, animated version of PNG [The same people made it])
the eye3,496 posts since 19 Jan 2005
bilky asko posted:
the eye posted:
bilky asko posted:
Here's a comparison (fortunately this is a very "faithful" recreation)

*
That's a PNG. It comes out exactly as you see it on the screen.
*
That's a JPEG.
Notice the slight halo effect and the compression artifacts - making what would be smooth colour "spotted". It's also a nightmare to edit. And, the colour is slightly different to the PNG. PNG supports alpha transparency at multiple levels too.

That's why I use PNG for everything but photos.


His TV Live logo is 100% quality, looks exactly the same as it does in PNG.

Your JPEG logo there is only 66% quality, so whatever program you use, is ****.


Incorrect. Where you can see the white speckling is where compression has taken place, so it is not the same as PNG.

*

Also, my image was not saved at 66% compression, it was saved at 75% (and it is adjustable). Don't assume things without knowing the facts. And also don't assume my program is **** (whatever childish profanity you used) without knowing what it is. And calm down, you don't need to bite my head off.

I do appreciate that making another logo is a pain in the rectum, (especially if the website is new, because the content is the priority) but PNG is something to take into account in the future. (It is a good logo, I like it. Whatever you do, keep the design)


Hey idiot, I made the logo, I know what im on about.
nevermind158 posts since 14 Sep 2006
I like the new logo, the site design is clean and well readable but still too simple... try to work out different colours for particular channels, or just broadcasters Smile. But still I look up to you because of the creation of a site on a topic when so much competition is already present.
nevermind
Joe6,069 posts since 9 Oct 2005
Meridian (South) South Today
sstepski posted:
I like the new logo.


I disagree, I much preferred th old one.

sstepski posted:
the site design is clean and well readable


I agree, it's nice.

sstepski posted:
but still too simple... try to work out different colours for particular channels, or just broadcasters Smile.


I don't think that would work to be honest, it would become too complicated.

sstepski posted:
But still I look up to you because of the creation of a site on a topic when so much competition is already present.


I would only count TV Ark, TV Room, and to a certain extent TV Whirl, as proper competition. We keep seeing sites popping up in this section which last about 2 months, then they shut down. However, the competition there is is strong, so well done for attempting to come up against it.
rob6,776 posts since 7 Apr 2001
Meridian (South) South Today
Well, a lot of e-mails have come my way saying they don't like the new logo... might change it back.

With regards to different colours for different channels, it's just too much work, and I'm not prepared to do that.

UPDATE - ABC1 images uploaded as well as Thames Valley Today images. I've got Krypton Factor images uploading as we speak.
tvlive.org.uk