Scan I made of a CD cover. The pixelation is inherent in the original.

>>1088298
like there's a fucking difference between these two

>>1088326

Need some source for that? Is that Norway, Sweden or Denmark?! And the name of the church would be nice.

>>1088357
>not using png when appropriate
>using when appropriate
>appropriate
>pictures taken with digital zoom aren't png appropriate, artwork and cg animation and lower res images are

>>1088359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heddal_stave_church

>Am I wrong?

Yes.

(Well you did ask, content dictator.)

>>1088398
you are shit

>>1088425

I'm guessing that's the kind of good content and cerebral posting you want around here, my fellow anon

>png

Invented by niggers, for niggers.

>>1088451
you are stupid

You lost me at "not using .png when appropriate"

Sounds like you need to learn what is and isn't appropriate.

>>1089241
than educate me. be part of the solution not the problem.

png is always appropriate

>>1088298

>>1089899
>.jpg
HAHAHA, OH WOW!

>>1089899

png would have been appropriate in this case

>>1089922
>>1089904

>>1089931

1024 vertical resolution isn't inherently bad.

>>1089942

jagged edges fail

>>1089955
if its a panorama over 7000 wide, no it isnt, but it is always better if it is higher

>>1089763

>>1090595
so what did i say that was wrong?

/hr went to shit long ago and our faggot mods seems to be fine with the rules being broken constantly.

The 3rd biggest picture i have.

Others are too large.

>>1090598

You put up a picture with hundreds of colors. It may have had text, but at this point, the lossless compression doesn't provide any advantage.


Examine the difference between
>>1088298 and >>1088357
Can you visually distinguish the difference? Not really. So go with the smaller file format.

>>1090814
when you take a png and make it a jpg, you are doing something negative, when you take a jpg and make it a png, you are not really making the slightest difference either way, unless you are worried about how long it takes to download, the space it takes up, and the bandwidth of the site. /hr/ doesn't move fast enough to need to care about bandwidth, most everyone has some form of high speed internet, and if you are interested in pictures and you go here, it isn't likely that you have a computer from the 90's that hasn't been given a newer hd. i agree with you, but not in such a strict way.
>not using png when appropriate
>NOT

sage for sagefag

>>1091000
bump

>>1090695

The mods on /hr/ are great, they delete spam and gore. People are just posting stuff you don't like, not breaking the rules. Learn the difference.

>>1091794
are you blind?

>>1091920
irrelevant to anyone on /hr/
>Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG

I use TIFF as an intermediate image format when I convert raw digital photos. Raw (DNG) files are around 16 MB/image, and when saved as 48-bit TIFF, it's 35 MB/image.

But in the end the resulting image gets saved as 92% quality level, 4:2:2 subsampled JPEG. Those end up usually around 1.5.. 3MB/image and have the same visible quality as the TIFF files.