RE: to zip or exe. . . [was large images]

Sharyn Hinchcliffe mused

> PNG isn't dead - it's new so browser support isn't fully
> available as of yet.

Well it is supported by level 4 browsers NN 4 and IE 4, and they do seem to
be at least 50%-80% (depending on whose figures you look at)  of the market
place.

But why doesn't the web design community use PNG?  This is a question I have
always asked.

Is it that we don't have 90% coverage and that the we are as expected
chasing that al mighty dollar and know that  if you have great site  but the
image doesn't render (PNG on NN 3), its not worth 2 cents.

But surely for a defined audience demographic like Gamers (thanks Fuzzy for
the example) then you have the latest and greatest browsers.  So on these
sites, with this audience focus. you will find PNGs.  But you don't.  Why
not?

Well maybe IMNSHO we (web designers) have got so used to producing JPEGs and
GIFs and that the software we use (eg fireworks etc ImageReady, PS5.5) has
progressed so much and become so good at compressing an image to the nth
degree that we can't really see a need for 64 bit graphics etc (that's the
human eye can't really distinguish anyway from a clear 32 bit).  When on the
other side of the argument the algorithms for PNG rendering seem to be, well
very poor in comparison.

Think about it... don't rush and reply.

Think why don't you use PNG. If you had 95% browser compliance would you use
PNGs.  Or stick with your JPEGs and GIFs you know and hate/love.

So after all this if PNG is really dead, then why did it die and what can
save Jpeg2000 from the same fate?

Gary Barber
radharc.

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA