Best Alternative to Png that takes less space?

[seattle-west]

i was wandering what is the best alternative to png because ive been using png and ive been noticing it takes away to load up because its png anyone know a good alternative that uses less space and about matchable quality

[boogyman]

png is a very detailed image format, that is why it takes so long. jpg for most purposes will give you the quality that is necessary

[djr33]

png is actuallly quite good, and the only question there would be in terms of compatibllity or usability, and that's minimal at this point, with IE7 and such.
If you want lower filesize, compress more, or you could use jpg or gif, but it all depends on how much compression and the type of image.

[Twey]

the only question there would be in terms of compatibllity or usabilityOnly if using the alpha transparency features, and even then everything except IE6 supports it, and IE6 can be worked around with AlphaImageLoader.

GIF will almost certainly produce a larger file than the equivalent PNG with full compression applied, and of a lower quality too -- it's limited to 256 colours. JPEG will be quite a bit smaller, but you'll lose a lot of detail.

If you're creating your PNGs with Photoshop, you're not taking full advantage of PNG's compression features. Open it and save it in the GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/), or run it through pngcrush (http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/).

[djr33]

JPG could be smaller or larger, depending on the quality selected on both the PNG and JPG.
GIF might be smaller, but only in the case of a very simple (for example: 2 color) graphic (not photo).

In terms of compatiblity, I just meant that is the concern, if anything, with PNG, not filesize.

[Twey]

JPG could be smaller or larger, depending on the quality selected on both the PNG and JPG.No, JPEG will be smaller in almost all cases. The ones where it isn't, if there are such images, are probably images of one pixel.
GIF might be smaller, but only in the case of a very simple (for example: 2 color) graphic (not photo).No, PNG supports indexed mode as well, so GIF has no advantage over PNG here either.

[djr33]

That assumes the user knows how to access indexed mode, and that their software allows this.

As for JPG, will not a JPG image at 100% quality be about the same size as PNG?

I really don't see the point in PNG, then, if JPG is always smaller. Just go with JPG. Usually, anything above 30% quality looks passable and about 60% is great.

[jscheuer1]

Well, it depends upon the image and your skill, knowledge and software as regards manipulating them. The .png is always smaller than an equivalent .gif (same amount of colors and dithering) but, .png is capable of so many more colors than .gif. For what is known as 'line art' (like about 32 colors or less), .png is the best web based graphic. It is also the only alpha channel image format for the web - great for semi-transparent effects where style opacity will not work. For photos, .jpg is the best for the web as it can achieve the smallest byte size with the least amount of apparent loss in quality.

[djr33]

The note about apparent loss of quality is important.
If you later take a JPG image and alter it significantly, such as by changing the colors (tinting it green, or making everything much darker, etc.) you will begin to see blocky elements. The format creates these intentionally to limit filesize, but it's not a good format if you'll need to change it later. For this reason, it's a good idea to save an original (not even a png/gif for that matter), and to consider this if there is some reason someone would need to manipulate your images.