Adoption of PNG

[baba_looey]

I'm curious as to why the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) spec has not been widely adopted. It's not like there is a compatibility issue since most browsers have long provided support for PNG. Also, from my experience, it would appear that, generally speaking, PNG-8 produces smaller file sizes than GIF.

Anyone care to comment?

[Jona]

Originally posted by baba_looey
I'm curious as to why the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) spec has not been widely adopted. It's not like there is a compatibility issue since most browsers have long provided support for PNG. Also, from my experience, it would appear that, generally speaking, PNG-8 produces smaller file sizes than GIF.

Anyone care to comment?

Support for PNG is indeed wide, but not full support; Internet Explorer, the leading browser, still fails to interpret semi-transparency in PNGs properly. And, since PNG doesn't provide any other real enhancements, the GIF fallback is most commonly used. Until Microsoft gets their head on straight, transparent PNGs will only be used extraneously for browsers that understand them, such as Mozilla Firefox or Opera.

[baba_looey]

Originally posted by Jona
Support for PNG is indeed wide, but not full support; Internet Explorer, the leading browser, still fails to interpret semi-transparency in PNGs properly. And, since PNG doesn't provide any other real enhancements, the GIF fallback is most commonly used. Until Microsoft gets their head on straight, transparent PNGs will only be used extraneously for browsers that understand them, such as Mozilla Firefox or Opera.

Thanks, Jona. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

BTW, what do you mean "Until Microsoft gets their head on straight...."?
That won't happen. MS long ago adopted a business model that they cling to with all their might, much like a junkie to heroin.

[Jona]

Originally posted by baba_looey
BTW, what do you mean "Until Microsoft gets their head on straight...."?
That won't happen. MS long ago adopted a business model that they cling to with all their might, much like a junkie to heroin.

I mean if and when they start implementing technologies that other browsers have supported for about 4 to 5 years. They should get the basics before adding their own ideas.

[amazing_andr3]

OK so take out the transparency.

The only reason for using PNG is a smaller file size.
The only reason for using GIF is... because my grandfather used it.

Take your pick.

[Jona]

Originally posted by amazing_andr3
OK so take out the transparency.

The only reason for using PNG is a smaller file size.
The only reason for using GIF is... because my grandfather used it.

Take your pick.

Except you can sacrifice quality for file size with GIFs but not PNGs.

[amazing_andr3]

I don't know how you can sacrifice quality for file size with a GIF, except using less colors, but that will achieve the same reduction in PNG size. Is there some other way?

[Jona]

Originally posted by amazing_andr3
I don't know how you can sacrifice quality for file size with a GIF, except using less colors, but that will achieve the same reduction in PNG size. Is there some other way?

The less colors, the lower the quality; you can also decrease file size by allowing the GIF to be more lossy. I haven't the time to look into it, but PNG-24's don't seem to provide a "less colors" option.

[drythirst]

Use PNG-8...
PNG is the best... I don't know why I haven't been using it much...
PNG has good quality without the big filesizes...
Cltin ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[Robert Wellock]

For true colour images containing text and sharp colour transitions 24 bit PNG could turn out smaller, and will certainly provide the best quality.

For converting GIF images, use 8 bit PNG. With the right image tools only tiny GIF files remain smaller than a PNG