Comments on: Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats

By: Eric Di Bari

Eric Di Bari — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:44:00 +0000

I’ve noticed that pngs seem to be much larger in size than jpgs. Although, I rarely consider using gifs for anything other than necessary small animations like ajax loading icons.

By: linke

linke — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:51:07 +0000

great post!

I normally use .gif 256 colours – but I never tried to use png32!
based on your post … I´d use this … depending on the situation…

thanks for your tips : )

By: Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats - The CSS Blog, just CSS. (Tips, Tricks, Tutorials, Resources and more!)

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:45 +0000

[...] Original post: Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats – The CSS Blog, just CSS. (Tips, Tricks, Tu… [...]

By: web design company

web design company — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:10:10 +0000

your post is helpful and informative

By: Martin Berglund

Martin Berglund — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:58:17 +0000

Smashingmagazine has a great article about “Clever PNG Optimization Techniques”. I learned some new bits and pieces and I recommend reading it

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/15/clever-png-optimization-techniques/

By: Evan Byrne

Evan Byrne — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:58:31 +0000

Another thing that should be noted about PNGs is that the color doesn’t match up exactly in IE7 with its hex color, which can screw up some layouts.

By: CSS Brigit | Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats

CSS Brigit | Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:27:24 +0000

Image slicing and CSS – Being clever with file formats... Being clever with image file formats is a key factor when we are focusing in our site's response time. This article is focused on choosing the correct one according to the case. ...

By: Le Détracteur

Le Détracteur — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:04:56 +0000

Agree with Jonnotie.

DD_BelatedPNG FTW! Really, the best ever. No need for blank.gif and stuff like that. Love it, and use it all the time.

http://www.dillerdesign.com/experiment/DD_belatedPNG/

By: Nacho

Nacho — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:40:10 +0000

I decided to remove the weight chart because it’s really controversial. It deeply depends on how you export the images.

By: Chris Pratt

Chris Pratt — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:27:22 +0000

So many things wrong with this post.

1) Like others have said 8-bit PNGs beat out GIFs in smaller file size. I never use GIFs anymore.

2) The quality of an 8-bit PNG is wonderful if it’s an image that can stand 8-bit quality (256 colors). Which means, yeah, the quality is going to suck if you try to save a photo as an 8-bit PNG, but it would suck just as much as a GIF which is also 8-bit.

3) PNG-24 does support alpha transparency. Where’ve you been?

4) Most photos can be encoded as JPGs with 51% quality and still look nearly identical (surprisingly there’s a *world* of difference between 50% and 51%). 60% would satisfy even the biggest quality nuts. 80% is just excessive, and you’re lying to yourself if you thinks there’s that much of a difference between 60% and 80% to warrant the exponential increase in size.

5) PNG-24+ should only be used for alpha transparency. It’s file size is much larger than a comparable quality JPG, so a JPG should be used unless you need the transparency.