Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Backgrounds
Backgrounds
1
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Spartan on Sat Mar 5th at 5:10pm 2005

I've got screenshots from both Half Life 2 and WoW that can be used as backgrounds. They are BMPs so the quality is good but they take a little longer to view than a Jpeg. I've got several pictures and I'll be adding on so I think you should be able to find something you like in there. They are very atmospheric too.

http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/spartan_34_themapper/lst?.dir=/My+Documents/screenshot+backgrounds&.view=l [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by fraggard on Sat Mar 5th at 6:05pm 2005

Convert them to PNGs if you can. The format is lossless, so you retain the quality, plus they take up about 30% the size of a bitmap.




Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Spartan on Sat Mar 5th at 6:08pm 2005

? quoting fraggard
Convert them to PNGs if you can. The format is lossless, so you retain the quality, plus they take up about 30% the size of a bitmap.

Ok I'll try that.

What about changing them to GIFs?

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by ReNo on Sat Mar 5th at 6:14pm 2005

GIF's aren't suited to pictures with a lot of variety in colour (eg. screenshots, photos), but are best for things like vector graphics or website images that tend to have larger blocks of consistant colour. You would be best making them high quality JPEG's, as even without losing much quality you will save a signficant amount in file size. Or try PNG's as frag said, as I know nothing about them.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Leperous on Sat Mar 5th at 6:27pm 2005

PNGs are usually quite awful for large complicated images- JPGs are still the daddy at those. Only use I've found for PNGs so far is website logos with text in :/



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by fraggard on Sat Mar 5th at 6:30pm 2005

? quote:
PNGs are usually quite awful for large complicated images- JPGs are still the daddy at those. Only use I've found for PNGs so far is website logos with text in :/


He seems to want lossless compression, which JPEG just cannot give. It wasn't designed to be lossless. PNG is the only other decent, widely supported, lossless format I know of.




Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by ReNo on Sat Mar 5th at 7:23pm 2005

Ah but if he wants only noticeable lossless (as in he doesnt need it perfect, just perfect as is noticeable by the human eye) then a high quality jpeg will still do the trick.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Campaignjunkie on Sat Mar 5th at 10:00pm 2005

PNG's are really good for alpha transparency (we're talking crazy 32-bit transparency here). Too bad IE doesn't support it, so it's rarely used (if ever).
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Mar 5th at 11:49pm 2005

In photoshop, there are varying qualities that one can save JPG in. the 12 quality looks JUST like a BMP. the 1 quality looks like a truckstop toilet. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by parakeet on Sun Mar 6th at 12:24am 2005

My first post from Fedora linux , Pictures coming soon ^_^. I figured i should try it as a website maker = p it turns out.. thats really what its good for is hosting. So i shall put up pics soon . [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Spartan on Sun Mar 6th at 1:31am 2005

I'll try a high quality jpeg. The pictures aren't hugely complicated but do have a large variety of colors. If I do make it a higher quality jpeg there shouldn't be any noticable difference. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Backgrounds
Posted by Orpheus on Tue Mar 8th at 11:24am 2005

If you turn down all the optimizations in the XAT program, you can make a jpg look even better with it. it has some sort of a color adding utility in it.

might be worth a looksee.

XAT is not just a compression utility, its just the best one.

[addsig]




1
Post Reply