Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Web Cartoonists: Burn All Gifs!

By brennanw in MLP
Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 01:34:34 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

I am a web cartoonist. My comic strip, Help Desk is one of forty-some odd strips on the Keenspot site. On Tuesday,I converted every gif on my site -- including my complete comic strip archives -- into the PNG format. And now I want every other web cartoonist to do the same thing, and I've said as much on my site.


For a long time, the PNG format has been dismissed as a good idea, but too new to be viable. Not enough people could view it, not enough browsers supported it.

That has changed -- now, every major operating system (and a few minor ones) has access to a browser that can view the format. Netscape, Internet Explorer, Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror... even if someone currently doesn't have the latest version of one of these browsers, they can get it. So why is this format still considered a good idea, but impractical for general use?

Because no one has, en masse, tried to get a segment of the web population to adopt it.

I'm trying to get web cartoonists, and fans of web cartoons, to put their support the PNG format and give it a little more momentum. It seems like such a stupid thing in comparison to all the truly scary and downright offensive things going on in the world of computers today (and the rest of the world, for that matter)... but it's such a simple thing to do, changing from GIFs to PNGs, why not abandon a closed technology for a deliberately open one?

The title of this submission was taken from the Burn All GIFs Webpage, which describes the main controversy surrounding the format, and Unisys' patenting of the compression algorithm (LZW) that GIFs use.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Help Desk
o Keenspot
o I've said as much
o Burn All GIFs Webpage
o Also by brennanw


Display: Sort:
Web Cartoonists: Burn All Gifs! | 44 comments (34 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Can't burn all gifs yet (4.00 / 1) (#5)
by enterfornone on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 06:51:24 PM EST

Does any browser support transparency properly yet? Last time I tested Mozilla it didn't although it was being worked on (it had partial support). I don't think IE has transparency support yet at all.

What about MNG support?

Unless the major browsers have support for the features currently supported by gif people will still need to use gif.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
Mozilla, of course. ;) (none / 0) (#8)
by vectro on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 06:57:21 PM EST

IE supports PNG alpha-transparency, but not in conjugation with CSS layers. Mozilla handles this correctly.

Support is planned for Mozilla support of MNG, but it's not there yet. I'm not aware of any major browser that implements MNG.

But that's not the point! 99.9% of GIFs (e.g. non-animated, non-transparent ones) can be replaced with PNGs TODAY. We can mop up the remaining 0.1% later.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Konqueror supports MNG (none / 0) (#23)
by newellm on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 03:54:59 AM EST

Konqueror(KDE's Web Browser) supports MNG and png. I believe it even supports transparency although I could be wrong. It is a really nice full featured browser. Supports DOM 1,2, XHTML, HTML 4, CSS 1, 2, JavaScript, Java, and can use Netscape plugins to view Flash and other things.

Matt Newell

[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (none / 0) (#29)
by Skippy on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 01:46:45 PM EST

IE supports PNG alpha-transparency, but not in conjugation with CSS layers. Mozilla handles this correctly.
Are you sure abou that? I tested IE vs. Mozilla about a week ago (IE 5.5 vs. Mozilla 0.7) and could not get IE to do transparency in any way. Mozilla handled everything I tried. Was this IE on a Mac by any chance (I haven't tested that but it is supposedly more standards compliant than IE on Windows)

# I am now finished talking out my ass about things that I am not qualified to discuss. #
[ Parent ]
IE PNG compliance (none / 0) (#30)
by vectro on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 05:14:37 PM EST

According to the libpng web site, IE has broken alpha transparency support in versions 4.0-5.5. You can read the link for detailed information on what is broken.

In addition to what's listed there, I've found that it generally performs the alpha with respect to the background color of the CSS containing block, which works for maybe 80% of cases. If you use CSS to put one image atop another, or if you use a PNG with alpha in your CSS background-image, it will come out wrong.

Also, the windows 3.x version of IE has no PNG support.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

Animated GIFs are more common than you think. (none / 0) (#39)
by pin0cchio on Mon Mar 19, 2001 at 11:22:11 PM EST

99.9% of GIFs (e.g. non-animated, non-transparent ones) can be replaced with PNGs TODAY.

That statistic implies that you're probably using an ad filter such as Junkbuster. The rest of us see banners on our pages, and they're most often GIF animations, which incidentally make up much more than 0.1% of GIF hits. (In fact, they make up all the GIF hits on otherwise GIF-free sites such as PinEight.com.) Very few Web browsers support MNG animations (Mozilla does); fewer still support Flash animations without a plugin. If advertisers can't animate their banners, they will pay even lower rates than they currently pay.


lj65
[ Parent ]
PNG is at... (3.33 / 3) (#6)
by Vulch on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 06:53:50 PM EST

Information about the PNG format, the code, applications which use it etc, can be found at the PNG Home Site.

Anthony

Ahh... (none / 0) (#9)
by fluffy grue on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 07:02:23 PM EST

So that's why Help Desk has been doing this PNG storyline right now. I thought you were just making fun of Microsoft's recent "Linux is un-American" stuff... I didn't think to see that you'd changed your strips over to PNG format. :)

Of course, I've seen this topic come up on the Keenspot forums now and then, and most of the cartoonists (Jeff Darlington springs directly to mind) claim that they won't switch because "not all browsers support it," when I don't know of any graphical browsers in actual use which don't support it. Hell, even Emacs-W3 supports PNG... and I seriously doubt there's any Mosaic users out there (I mean, you don't see many people lamenting the use of tables on websites, do you?). Of course, nobody's ever up in arms over Ashfield Online using Flash for some of the cartoons, when Flash is certainly not supported as pervasively as PNG...
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

In defense of Jeff (none / 0) (#12)
by brennanw on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 07:43:05 PM EST

What he actually said was that he'd like to support it, but he's afraid of alienating viewiers who just so happen to not be able to view it. I can't really blame any cartoonist for taking that stance... viewers are, after all, essential to the success of a web comic.

If I weren't so confident that most viewers can view PNGs anyway, and most of the rest will be willing to use a browser that does if the situation is explained to them, I wouldn't be jumping into it so entusiastically now. And some people think I'm being a bit over-eager anyway...


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

Guess I was a bit harsh (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by fluffy grue on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 10:09:06 PM EST

I realize that I took what he said out of context, which gave an unfair impression to anyone who didn't read his actual forum post (which would be probably 99.99% of Kuro5hin :) so I apologize for that. Basically, I just meant that jtdarlington is against using PNGs because of the (ill-reasoned) belief that not every in-use browser can view them. I don't know of a single browser in actual usage today which doesn't support PNG - please correct me if I'm wrong, but Netscape/Mozilla 4+ (on most platforms, and on OS/2 it's a simple matter to get the plugin), MSIE 4+, Opera, net.positive, and Emacs-W3 support them, and I really can't think of any in-use graphical browsers I didn't mention. (I don't know if, say, PlanetWeb does or not, but somehow I doubt many Dreamcast-only users read Keenspot.) To believe that switching to PNG right now is "over-eager" due to the possibility of it not being viewable is just ignorant, IMO, and it was ignorant half a year ago when jtdarlington said it.

I don't mean to badmouth him, but I just think he's being overly-cautious for no good reason. To claim that even a graphics-required site (such as a webcomic) shouldn't use PNGs is like claiming that it shouldn't use tables or rely on BODY attribute tags for colors to work - but Keenspot uses plenty of those. I'd hate to see what Keenspot looks like on Mosaic or GZilla, though, neither of which have support for either, last I checked.

Granted, PNG support is far from complete in most browsers - I don't know of anything which supports MNG, and very few get alpha correct, but neither of those are useful in webcomics anyway (well, okay, some comics have been known to use animations from time to time, but IMO that's actually a bad practice - it makes the reading of the script time-dependent, and those strips are typically very difficult to read).
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

it's a very popular misconception (none / 0) (#19)
by brennanw on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 10:51:41 PM EST

People still assume that a heck of a lot of people are using NS 3, IE4, Mosaic, etc. I actually do have one reader that I know of who uses NS 3 (and apparently the PNG plugin for NS 3 is very poor) and he had a lot of trouble viewing the PNGs... they kept opening in separate windows. He's an exception to my normal experience... although apparently IE 5.5 will sometimes flake out and not render them.

A lot of people still believe PNG is less supported than it is... even when you tell them otherwise, there's still a gut feeling that it's risky, and that gut feeling is hard to fight sometimes. Still, I know that a few other strips on Keenspot are watching my experiment very closely. If I can manage keep my readership steady for a month or two, I think you'll see other Keenspot comics make the switch.


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

NS3 plugin (none / 0) (#21)
by fluffy grue on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 01:11:06 AM EST

Hm, what platform is the NS3 user on? I would have thought that the NS3 plugin would do a good job of handling it, though it's been so long since I've used that particular browser, I can understand that there might be problems. Likewise, I've never used IE5.5, though the problems with PNG there would probably be due to a certain Mr. Bunny. (Sorry, can never remember the boss's full name, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. :)

It'd be nice to see everyone switch to PNG, though. Hopefully enough sites will use them that even Microsoft will have to care about their PNG support. It's pretty funny, BTW, how IIRC, MSIE 4's documentation specifically said that PNG wasn't supported, even though it seemed to work just fine. ;) (There was something in the FAQ about why opening up PNG files would launch image viewer, which it did if you pointed MSIE to a PNG directly but it'd load inline PNGs happily.)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

NS3 is a smaller browser (none / 0) (#32)
by magney on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 07:58:24 PM EST

I have a few friends who are using much older computers (e.g. more than 3 years), and for them, although NS4 could be loaded, it's a big hog, and tends to fall over. NS3 is still lightweight enough for them to run.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Um, yeah, and? (none / 0) (#33)
by fluffy grue on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 09:08:16 PM EST

When did I say that everyone should switch to NS4? :) I just said that I don't personally run it anymore, so I wouldn't know anything about issues with the PNG plugin.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

server logs? (none / 0) (#25)
by delmoi on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 12:42:56 PM EST

Turn on user-agent recording in apache, and see what your users are actually using. I did this on picture-rate.com, and found a surprisingly large number of Linux users coming to picture-rate.com, I had heard that only about 1% of web surfers Linux, but in my case it was more like 20%. So I quickly worked on getting the page compatible with mozilla and not just IE. (I had been planning on getting the database layer coded first).

Just turn user-agent recording on in Apache, or whatever server you're using, and check and see what browsers people are actually using. I doubt you'd find many that didn't support PNG
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
PNG is nice, but larger. (3.50 / 2) (#13)
by codepoet on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 07:45:01 PM EST

In my experience I've found that while PNG is nice and supports pretty much every kind of file format I'd like to save outside of JPEG, the resulting files are much larger. While a lot of people are on broadband and don't really care about a few extra K on an image, I'm on a modem that can't break 38000 on a connection, so that matters.

Like it or hate it, GIF is still better for the filesize.

-- The cynical can often see the sinister aspect of a cup of coffee if given enough time.

It depends on the image... (4.66 / 3) (#14)
by brennanw on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 07:57:13 PM EST

...and the program you use to create the graphic. On my site, each panel on my strip was reduced by about 4.5K. Color GIFs are usually larger than color PNGs. However, PNGs only save in 8 and 24 bit images, so if you reduce the colors of a GIF down below 8 bits it will be smaller. And JPEGs are almost always better for true color images.

But for color images 256 colors or less, PNG is usually smaller than GIF.


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0) (#16)
by enterfornone on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 08:15:25 PM EST

I beleive most PNG software defaults to 24bit while GIF is generally 8bit (can you even have 24bit GIF?). JPEG is almost always better for any images, however the lossyness is usually fairly obvious on line art. I would suspect that the original poster was comparing 24bit PNG to 8bit GIF, since that is what you tend to find on the web.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
well, not really (3.00 / 1) (#15)
by 31: on Sat Mar 17, 2001 at 08:02:01 PM EST

Ok, check out http://students.washington.edu/pmichaud/imagetest/

I made a random set of squiggles, made a gif and an indexed color png, and the png is smaller. I took a photo from a party a while ago, and made a png and a jpeg out of it.

Well, I expected the pngs to be smaller in both cases, but turns out the png is smaller than the gif, and larger than the jpeg.

So I would say that pngs make a good substitute for gifs, unless you're doing animated gifs... but that's a whole seperate problem.

critisism of my rather hastily developed test are welcome...

-Patrick
[ Parent ]
PNG vs JPG (none / 0) (#24)
by delmoi on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 12:37:34 PM EST

Remember, PNG is a loss less image compression, like GIF, whereas JPG files remove data that won't be as visually noticed. When you make a PNG, every pixel has the same value, whereas in a JPG the image only looks the same.

A ping is a better choice for simple 2d graphics, or screenshots, whereas JPG is much, much better for things like real-world photographs.

The format I'd really like to see is JPEG 2000, which takes care of a lot of the ugly artifacts that can arise from overly zealous Jpeg compression.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
A common misunderstanding about PNGs (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by afeldspar on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 01:24:22 PM EST

This is something that happens fairly frequently; someone wants to compare PNG and GIF, so they save the same image as a PNG and as a GIF and compare the file size, find the PNG is larger, and conclude that the PNG format itself is not that great.

But what is misunderstood is that PNG supports several means of storing the image losslessly, and many of the programs that "save as PNG" don't even offer you all of those means, let alone making the choice between them visible and easily understood.

GIF images can never use more than 256 colors; they are limited to putting the 256 best colors into a palette, then trying to convert the image to those and only those colors (which is why complex images frequently end up dithered when saved to GIF; the program doing the saving will try to represent a color it doesn't have by juggling patterns of the colors it does have.)

Sometimes the image doesn't need more than 256 colors, and a palette is appropriate. PNG has an "indexed" mode for images like this, and when it is finally compared to GIF apples-to-apples, PNG tends to win out on all but the very smallest graphics.

But PNG also has a mode for rendering images with greater fidelity than GIF can manage -- in fact, it has two; one for grayscale and one for truecolor. In these modes, PNG can represent *any* color, to 8 or 16 bits precision per sample, not just one of a carefully selected set of 256. Because most people who don't know how to select options to get the result they want generally want faithful images rather than small images, most programs that save as PNGs default to saving in truecolor mode -- and while the truecolor mode is what you'd want for images that truly *have* to be reproduced accurately, there *is* an extra expense incurred for making that accuracy possible.

(As an example of how easy it is to misunderstand these options... I have to point out that even Christopher Wright, the cartoonist spearheading this move to PNGs, got it wrong. ^^; He says PNGs only save in 8 and 24 bit images. I think he meant that PNGs in truecolor mode can only use either 8-bit samples (256 different levels of gray/red/blue/green) or 16-bit samples (65536 different levels of g/r/b/g). But in the indexed mode, the one comparable to GIF, PNG uses 8-bit samples for the color, just as GIF does, and can use a palette of as few colors as 1, or as many as 256, just as GIF does.)

P.S. And yes, I am ignoring alpha channels for the moment...


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]
eep (none / 0) (#31)
by brennanw on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 05:43:38 PM EST

I did, in fact, misunderstand that... and will take steps to correct that misunderstanding. Thanks for the info.


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#38)
by cr0sh on Mon Mar 19, 2001 at 06:06:15 PM EST

The GIF format can support more than 8-bit color, I have seen both 16 and 24 bit GIFs. However, the problem has been that most conversion software/GIF libraries either never supported the standard on the PC (because at the time PCs could only display a max of 256 colors - remember, GIF was designed for CompuServe), or it wasn't properly implemented. That, and 24 bit GIFs were large and slow to load.

[ Parent ]
n-bit color; more technical stuff... (none / 0) (#40)
by afeldspar on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:02:23 AM EST

The GIF format can support more than 8-bit color, I have seen both 16 and 24 bit GIFs. However, the problem has been that most conversion software/GIF libraries either never supported the standard on the PC (because at the time PCs could only display a max of 256 colors - remember, GIF was designed for CompuServe), or it wasn't properly implemented. That, and 24 bit GIFs were large and slow to load.

I suspect there's some confusion here based on the difference between bit-per-sample-depth, bits-per-palette-index, and what "n-bit-color" actually means.

8-bit-color uses 8 bits to store the red, green, and blue color values -- 3 each for red and green, I believe, and 2 going to blue because the eye is least sensitive to shades of blue. It's easy to misunderstand and think that "8-bit color" means 8 bits for each, but that's actually 24-bit color.

Now, GIF technically uses 24-bit color, since each color is defined with 3 bytes: one for each of the red, green and blue intensities. However, there is an important distinction to be made: these colors are defined as part of a "color map" that can have at most 256 entries. Thus, a GIF palette can select from 2^24 possible colors... but can only have 2^8 of those colors in any one image.

PNG, in indexed mode, has a maximum palette size of 256, so, like GIF, it can only use 2^8 colors in any one image. It can, however, use either 8 or 16 bits per color-sample; thus it can draw its 2^8 colors from a field of 2^24, or a field of 2^48.

In "truecolor" mode, the colors are again selected from a colorspace of 2^24 8-bit-per-sample colors or of 2^48 16-bit-per-sample colors. (Again, I'm ignoring alpha channels, plus for this discussion I'm ignoring grayscales.) This time, however, there is no palette; each pixel has the intensity values that determine its color recorded inline. Thus, it is completely possible to create a PNG image that actually uses all 2^48 colors available in the 16-bit-per-sample truecolor colorspace. While such an image will probably never be created except as a proof of concept, it's worth noting that because of PNG's filtering options that allow you to record various deltas in preference to absolute values, and the flexibility of PNG's internal compression, you can use a large number of color values and still potentially get a relatively small image -- with a constant gradient, for example.


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]
I refer you... (none / 0) (#43)
by cr0sh on Fri Mar 23, 2001 at 01:59:13 PM EST

...to this page...

[ Parent ]
GIFs, no longer a problem? (none / 0) (#26)
by delmoi on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 12:47:54 PM EST

While the stuff that Unisys was doing was bad, and nicessitated a move, I'm pretty sure that their patent has actualy expired, so its no longer an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Expires next year (none / 0) (#27)
by brennanw on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 12:53:46 PM EST

2002, I believe. And in my article, I acknowledge that the chance of a web cartoonist actually being sued is, well, slim to none. But while the actual danger of using GIFs is probably pretty slim unless you're a million dollar website, the principal of supporting an open format over a proprietary one is just as important in both cases.

Getting PNG adopted on a wide-scale is, at this point, more important as an example of how the "end user" community can push the adoption of open standards, moreso than an example of how we can avoid mass litigation from evil corporations.


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

Year after next, actually. (none / 0) (#34)
by Ray Chason on Sun Mar 18, 2001 at 11:51:18 PM EST

here is the patent.

Patents filed before 8 Jan 1995 expire on the later of 17 years from issue or 20 years from filing. Newer patents get only the 20 year period.

For the Unisys patent, the filing date is 20 Jun 1983, and the issue date is 10 Dec 1985. This patent expires on 20 Jun 2003.
--
The War on Terra is not meant to be won.
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
[ Parent ]

A eulogy (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by Ray Chason on Mon Mar 19, 2001 at 12:40:37 AM EST

While searching Delphion for the LZW patent, I also found this patent, which appears to cover some variant of LZW. In the Inventors line, I saw:

Welch, deceased; Terry A., late of Austin, TX

It seems that Mr. Welch, the W in LZW, has expired, even if his patent hasn't.

The stated purpose of patents, according to the US Constitution, is "to promote progress in science an the useful arts." The LZW patent has certainly done that. Without the LZW patent, we might still be using compress instead of gzip. Without the LZW patent, we might not have PNGs.

So, Mr. Welch, here's to you, and to US Patent 4,558,302. Your patent has certainly promoted progress in at least one useful art, even if it wasn't in the way that you and Unisys had in mind.
--
The War on Terra is not meant to be won.
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze

that's exactly what they had in mind (none / 0) (#37)
by streetlawyer on Mon Mar 19, 2001 at 09:38:59 AM EST

But that's exactly the purpose of the patent system; by forcing owners to publish the underlying ideas, while protecting their specific devices, the rest of the world is given both the incentive and the raw materials to produce a better device. What doesn't work here?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Bad Photoshop, bad bad! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by dmarti on Mon Mar 19, 2001 at 03:31:43 AM EST

Could it be that a lot of the web designers who started spreading the "PNG is larger" rumor were using Adobe Photoshop?

Greg Roelofs wrote:

Unlike (LZW-based) GIF, in which the compression is basically deterministic--that is, you end up with pretty much the same data regardless of who does the compression--PNG's scheme leaves a lot of room for optimization. Some programs do a good job, some don't. The GIMP happens to be one of the good ones, as is pngcrush. Photoshop traditionally has been one of the not-so-good ones, although version 5.5 includes a "Save for Web" option that presumably invokes ImageReady. ImageReady 1.0 was mediocre and reportedly isn't much better in its current release (i.e., pngcrush beats it by 15% to 25%), but it is better than Photoshop's normal "Save as" option.

In my experience, PNGs are about the same size -- some a little bigger, some a little smaller -- than the equivalent GIFs. Burn all GIFs

Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#41)
by Matrix on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 09:53:36 AM EST

Assuming that most webcomics use fairly simple artwork (B&W, mostly line art) and most webcartoonists who switch to PNG use a good set of compression options, the average size of the image files on Keenspot could go down. Considering that Keenspot is now having funding problems due to the sheer number of images they're serving, this could possibly improve things at least a bit for them.


Matrix
"...Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
- Lord Vetinari, pg 312 of the Truth, a Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

That is my hope (none / 0) (#42)
by brennanw on Tue Mar 20, 2001 at 12:10:09 PM EST

I know that on my site, the reduction of images has caused my pageviews/kb ratio to go down significantly -- from the high 50s to the low 40s. I'd like to see Keenspot as a whole take that step, I think it would help quite a bit.


Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
The Internet's Most Dangerous Cartoonist
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
[ Parent ]

Hey (none / 0) (#44)
by Elendale on Sat Apr 21, 2001 at 06:31:31 PM EST

Good luck man. I think PNGs are much more widely accepted than most people think
On a side note, i've found you to be one of the more clever satirists out there :)
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


Web Cartoonists: Burn All Gifs! | 44 comments (34 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!