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)