heres a good question for you!<br />
<br />
what do you think on png? for info on it, check out this site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html</a><!-- m -->) and you'll see the very spiffy shadowing and transparancy effects that png offers...<br />
<br />
if you knew that most popluar browsers today supported png, would you drop single-image gifs ( ie, not animated gifs ) and stick with png?<br />
<br />
in fact, do you think that the most popular browsers today already fully support png?<!--content-->heck yeah i would drop gifs for pngs. and no, they dont all support it. IE on windows doesnt support alpha transparency. but theres a js hack you can use to make it work. *smacks IE for not supporting PNGS*<!--content-->I'm not sure if I'd entirely drop gifs in favour of pngs, you know. Even if all browsers supported them.<br />
<br />
I know it may sound a bit silly, but there are times when I *want* the odd effects you can get with a gif. There are times when I need to have the 'layered' effect, the definite colour changes that undithered gif images will have. Or the pixellated shadows, where they look more like unconnected dots than dropshadows. <br />
<br />
And, of course, there is the matter of file size. I've done some images as both pngs and gifs and there's no difference between the two except for file size.<br />
<br />
Using pngs over gifs would depend on what I was doing, what I needed and the effects I wanted, I guess. Just the same as my choosing gifs over jpgs.<br />
<br />
*lol* Don't smack IE too hard, Nate. PNGs work just fine in the Mac version.
<br />
<br />
Peg<!--content-->ewwww png sucks in IE all version Peg. IE doens't support it very well. in fact you have to use alpha() to get it to do what you want, another IE thing. PNG's are not the cat's meow, the world will still go no if you support gif's.<br />
<br />
even in mozilla you hav eto use some special functions.<br />
<br />
-moz-opacity: 85%<br />
<br />
too much work to get something how you like it when you just make a gif to do it no problem.<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngfaq.html#msie">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngfaq.html#msie</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
that las tone is a little rediculous just to get png working. stupid IE<!--content-->thats not what im talking about<br />
theres another IE specific filter that when used with javascript allows your pngs to operate just the way they are intended. parts of the image can be full opacity, parts can have a much lower opacity<!--content-->can you show us n8?<!--content-->Don't you have to pay something to be able to make GIFs because they are copyrighted to a company of something, but PNG's are free to make? If that is true, then PNG's are definitely better for those of us too cheap to pay anything if we can avoid it and be legal.<br />
<br />
If PNG was better supported, I think that it would be a lot easier to use as the opacity feature would be great, but as it stands GIF is probably better for web design as it is better supported. Still, even if PNGs were better supported, I doubt they'd die out.<!--content-->you have to use the AlphaImageLoader filter<br />
<br />
various people have made their own scripts<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/snippets/sleight.xml">http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/snippets/sleight.xml</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.schillmania.com/">http://www.schillmania.com/</a><!-- m --> (go down to where it says "why png"<br />
<br />
and a list apart has a whole article on it <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/">http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/</a><!-- m --><!--content-->Originally posted by Michael2003 <br />
Don't you have to pay something to be able to make GIFs because they are copyrighted to a company of something, but PNG's are free to make? If that is true, then PNG's are definitely better for those of us too cheap to pay anything if we can avoid it and be legal.<br />
<br />
If PNG was better supported, I think that it would be a lot easier to use as the opacity feature would be great, but as it stands GIF is probably better for web design as it is better supported. Still, even if PNGs were better supported, I doubt they'd die out. <br />
<br />
nope! gifs are free to make, all you're doing is creating your image and then saving it in a gif format with an image editor...<br />
<br />
plus 3x major benifits are:<br />
<br />
what do you think on png? for info on it, check out this site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html</a><!-- m -->) and you'll see the very spiffy shadowing and transparancy effects that png offers...<br />
<br />
if you knew that most popluar browsers today supported png, would you drop single-image gifs ( ie, not animated gifs ) and stick with png?<br />
<br />
in fact, do you think that the most popular browsers today already fully support png?<!--content-->heck yeah i would drop gifs for pngs. and no, they dont all support it. IE on windows doesnt support alpha transparency. but theres a js hack you can use to make it work. *smacks IE for not supporting PNGS*<!--content-->I'm not sure if I'd entirely drop gifs in favour of pngs, you know. Even if all browsers supported them.<br />
<br />
I know it may sound a bit silly, but there are times when I *want* the odd effects you can get with a gif. There are times when I need to have the 'layered' effect, the definite colour changes that undithered gif images will have. Or the pixellated shadows, where they look more like unconnected dots than dropshadows. <br />
<br />
And, of course, there is the matter of file size. I've done some images as both pngs and gifs and there's no difference between the two except for file size.<br />
<br />
Using pngs over gifs would depend on what I was doing, what I needed and the effects I wanted, I guess. Just the same as my choosing gifs over jpgs.<br />
<br />
*lol* Don't smack IE too hard, Nate. PNGs work just fine in the Mac version.
<br /><br />
Peg<!--content-->ewwww png sucks in IE all version Peg. IE doens't support it very well. in fact you have to use alpha() to get it to do what you want, another IE thing. PNG's are not the cat's meow, the world will still go no if you support gif's.<br />
<br />
even in mozilla you hav eto use some special functions.<br />
<br />
-moz-opacity: 85%<br />
<br />
too much work to get something how you like it when you just make a gif to do it no problem.<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngfaq.html#msie">http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngfaq.html#msie</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
that las tone is a little rediculous just to get png working. stupid IE<!--content-->thats not what im talking about
<br />theres another IE specific filter that when used with javascript allows your pngs to operate just the way they are intended. parts of the image can be full opacity, parts can have a much lower opacity<!--content-->can you show us n8?<!--content-->Don't you have to pay something to be able to make GIFs because they are copyrighted to a company of something, but PNG's are free to make? If that is true, then PNG's are definitely better for those of us too cheap to pay anything if we can avoid it and be legal.<br />
<br />
If PNG was better supported, I think that it would be a lot easier to use as the opacity feature would be great, but as it stands GIF is probably better for web design as it is better supported. Still, even if PNGs were better supported, I doubt they'd die out.<!--content-->you have to use the AlphaImageLoader filter<br />
<br />
various people have made their own scripts<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/snippets/sleight.xml">http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/snippets/sleight.xml</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.schillmania.com/">http://www.schillmania.com/</a><!-- m --> (go down to where it says "why png"<br />
<br />
and a list apart has a whole article on it <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/">http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/</a><!-- m --><!--content-->Originally posted by Michael2003 <br />
Don't you have to pay something to be able to make GIFs because they are copyrighted to a company of something, but PNG's are free to make? If that is true, then PNG's are definitely better for those of us too cheap to pay anything if we can avoid it and be legal.<br />
<br />
If PNG was better supported, I think that it would be a lot easier to use as the opacity feature would be great, but as it stands GIF is probably better for web design as it is better supported. Still, even if PNGs were better supported, I doubt they'd die out. <br />
<br />
nope! gifs are free to make, all you're doing is creating your image and then saving it in a gif format with an image editor...<br />
<br />
plus 3x major benifits are:<br />
- <br />
just about every browser out there ( old AND new ) support gifs whereas they do not all yet fully support pngs<br />
you can give your gif a transparent background by setting one of the colors in the gif's palatte to be the transparent color<br />
( this is the best of all ) you can build animated gifs such as with 'animagic gif maker' among many others<br />
[/list=1] <br />
<br />
the thing i am interestedin with pngs is that you get more than 256 or 216 colors ( like the gifs are limited to ) and you can still have a transparent background color... of course, if png's arnt supported that much yet then i'll forget about pngs for the time being, myself<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
hmmm there's an idea... what is everyone's favorite animated ( --OR-- single-frame transparent ) gif maker application or site?<!--content-->gifs had been patented by like compuserve, i think. any program that made them had to purchase a license. i think the patent ran out like during the summer.<!--content-->Originally posted by ucm <br />
nope! gifs are free to make, all you're doing is creating your image and then saving it in a gif format with an image editor... <br />
they didn't use to be as n8 pointed out. even with the php GD Library 2.0+ you cannot make them as they didn't purchase a license.<br />
<br />
On June 20th, 2003 is when the well-known Unisys LZW patent expired in the US. Although this patent has expired in the United States, this patent does not expire for another year in the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
so yes, it is not free, (yet)<!--content-->Hold your horses... there is a JPG type image format around the corner. Lossless and amazing compression rates whilst being lossless. I'll see if I can find the link again... I believe it supports transparency as well.<br />
<br />
Looking now.<!--content-->n8thegreat<br />
any program that made them had to purchase a license.<br />
<br />
Originally posted by scoutt <br />
so yes, it is not free, (yet) <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
whoa! there's news... what of jpgs? or icons and bitmaps
<!--content-->Originally posted by entimp <br />
Hold your horses... there is a JPG type image format around the corner. Lossless and amazing compression rates whilst being lossless. I'll see if I can find the link again... I believe it supports transparency as well.<br />
<br />
Looking now. <br />
<br />
transparent jpgs? entimp, you would so be my new best friend<!--content-->are you talking about jpeg2000 (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aware.com/products/compression/jpeg2000.html">http://www.aware.com/products/compression/jpeg2000.html</a><!-- m -->) Entimp? that is the only new one I know of, well not new as it is 3 years old. but I am not sure if it does tranparency.<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2003/11/14/digphoto_ckbk.html">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascr ... _ckbk.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
as a side note, it is not supported around teh net as of yet. if you us it and want all the features that come with it you have to load some java class files.<!--content-->I think W3C recommends PNG to be used as a web image format...? But I'm not sure.<!--content-->