Actually I use JPEG to store even all the final images on my HD. As soon as I'm
finished a final rendering I convert the TGA to a JPEG and get rid of the TGA.
In most cases I use a compression of 1% which hardly has an effect on the image
quality while reducing a 1MEG file down to say 200-300k. Of coarse for posting
on the internet I compress then even more sometimes up to 60% depending on the
image.

"Rick (Kitty5)" wrote:

> > > This is much better, just one question ,why the hell a PNG? That damn
> file
> > > format makes one image look different in nearly every program i view it
> > > with.
> >
> > Get a _real_ newsreader (not Microblows-crap) and you'll see the pics.
>
> Yes but as I mentioned, PNG's are not displaed the same on every program,
> MSIE based programs display them MUCH larger and brighter, Paint shop pro
> makes the image look much darker, the list goes on and on!
>
> This is supposed to be a key factor in digital artwork, whats the point in
> spending hours creating the image if it's going to be displayed with
> different gamma setting on every program that displays it!!
>
> you have to target your work to the aduience, and if they are all using the
> same software as yourself, then no problem, but that is NEVER the case,
> people will decide on there software by either finincial or emmotional
> reasons.
>
> a compresseed TGA for rendering purposes will never grow that large from
> most scenes (up to 1024x768) and compress well with ZIP or RAR for storage.
> (same for windows BMP for that matter)
>
> JPEG compression is the standard for displaying images over the internet,
> don't forget you can adjust the compression so it suits the image better!
>
> Instead of commenting on my choice of software, maybe you should buy a new
> hard drive, if storage space is a critical as you make it seem, its a
> surprise that your machine even runs a an effective speed, remember that
> thing called - swap file?
>
> Rick

Post a reply to this message