can you not upload it to a site like photobucket or imageshack and then enter the url of the file instead of uploading it from your hard drive?

Disadvantage: I've never heard of a PNG file before today.

I was wondering myself just a min ago if that was possible without it changing the file format.. Thanks for the clearing up of that. I was just about to come here and say that my avatar is a perfect example of the horrible jpeg quality.

>> ^rottenseed:
can you not upload it to a site like photobucket or imageshack and then enter the url of the file instead of uploading it from your hard drive?

>> ^gorgonheap:
Disadvantage: I've never heard of a PNG file before today.


It's been around since 1995. Just recently has it been getting popular.

>> ^rottenseed:
can you not upload it to a site like photobucket or imageshack and then enter the url of the file instead of uploading it from your hard drive?


No you can't. Because it still saves the image to VS instead of hotlinking, reformats it as JPEG, and makes the entire image black.

Err nevermind then rottenseed. Tested and tried..

There is one problem with transparency in PNGs: support on Internet Explorer is mediocre. IIRC pre 6.0 it didn't support PNGs with transparency, and with 6.0 only with one level of transparency (just like GIF). I don't know if IE7 is any better, haven't tried that. But IEs lack of full PNG support has almost always been a PNG killer

>> ^srd:
There is one problem with transparency in PNGs: support on Internet Explorer is mediocre. IIRC pre 6.0 it didn't support PNGs with transparency, and with 6.0 only with one level of transparency (just like GIF). I don't know if IE7 is any better, haven't tried that. But IEs lack of full PNG support has almost always been a PNG killer


I only have two things to say in reply to that. PNG has been around since 1996, and who the hell uses IE anymore? Firefox is the future!

I would love to see the stats of this site's usage by browser. I'm sure there is a php program out there that does it, I just don't remember where.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think even IE 6.0 can't display PNG transparency - but we'll definitely consider it, I like PNG too.

>> ^dag:
I think even IE 6.0 can't display PNG transparency - but we'll definitely consider it, I like PNG too.


I guess I'm just used to Firefox, kind of forgot how much IE is lagging behind.

PNG > GIF at all times
PNG > JPG if the picture is small or simple

IE6.0 does have trouble with PNG tranparency, but that's no reason the rest of us should suffer.

"Internet Explorer supports PNG images but is unable to correctly display images with gamma correction or color correction. Versions of Internet Explorer prior to version 7 are unable to correctly display images with alpha channel (for transparency) without additional coding [24]" From Here.

Internet Explorer for Mac supports PNG though. IE really doesn't support much of anything. If you take a look at this statistics link, from w3schools.com, you'll see that Firefox is becoming QUITE popular though, with it's users quickly rising. Link.

I don't think GIF would be a viable option because the filesizes are too large and dithering looks worse then JPEG artifacts. You could limit the filesize for GIFs? What do you think dag?

Another idea. Allow hotlinking of images for avatars from approved sites. Postimage might suffice. But then thumbnails would be a problem, no? Let me know if it's a viable option.

Bring these ideas up at your next board meeting dag! lol

This makes me sad, I really like PNG. Damn Microsoft. Can't they get anything right?

I do have good news though. If you go here you can sign a petition for IE to support PNG. Not excellent news as I don't think Microsoft will give a Flying V.

*As a side note, IE doesn't even fully support JPEG either, "Internet Explorer does not support progressive display of progressive JPEG." From Here.)
I swear I have OCD. I've edited this post atleast a dozen times.

Jumpin' jpegs is okay for me.

If it doesn't hurt anyone and it helps someone, is there a reason not to change it?

>> ^Kreegath:
If it doesn't hurt anyone and it helps someone, is there a reason not to change it?


Good point. I'm going to counterpoint even though it will hurt my case. Although it would be a great idea in theory, there are several problems that will have to be solved beforehand. Firstly, Internet Explorer doesn't handle PNG files well. In my opinion, IE can go.. kiss a goat. Secondly, depending on how the site is coded, it may take a while to implement. Thirdly, filesize. On a website you want to look at space, if the PNG format is going to be bigger then JPEG, then it might add up in the future. But, for avatars, 125x125, the small filesize actually ends up making a PNG smaller then a JPEG most of the time. It's not just as simple as to say "Yeah, sure." and have it done. It needs to be planned out and such.

But, I do agree with you. If it's going to make things easier in the end, why not?
I just spent about a half an hour on an avatar I could have spent 5 mins on if I had transparency. It's just simpler to allow a file format which support an alpha channel.

What kreegath said. The bronze speaketh the truth.

Tip: Don't ever use BMP! It's huge, bloated, and Windows. Ugh!