Well, i allways thought that PNG was the smaller file type.
But when useing php gd optimize. changeing:
imageJPEG($thumbImg, $basename.".JPG");
to
imagePNG($thumbImg, $basename.".PNG");

http://www.nuweb.co.uk/includes/famous*****.JPG
http://www.nuweb.co.uk/includes/famous*****.PNG

.. The jpg is smaller than the PNG.. Whys that?
What shall i use?
Gif even?

From an image editor's point of view, there are different variables that can be adjusted, leading to different file sizes and quality of your optimised image. I don't know about php optimisation...

Also, different image formats are good for different things: gifs for large areas of solid colour and transparent areas, jpg for smooth colour transitions (doesn't support transparency), png similar to jpg and it supports transparency. Using the 'wrong' format may lead to an unnecessary loss in quality. Maybe that would influence which format to optimise to?

Not sure whether that helps at all.

png is a 'losslessly' compression algorithm, while jpeg is a lossy format... That's about it.

imagejpeg ( resource image [, string filename [, int quality]] )

you can set image quatily
default is 75%

Very interesting, guess i will use jpeg, on my next update.
Currently useing PNG, as ive been told, that that was smaller in general in the past.

Ill use jpeg 50% quality, their only a couple of hundred small thumbnails.

THANKS!

Originally Posted by NuWeb.co.uk

Very interesting, guess i will use jpeg, on my next update.
Currently useing PNG, as ive been told, that that was smaller in general in the past.

Ill use jpeg 50% quality, their only a couple of hundred small thumbnails.

THANKS!

When going from a raw image to png, you get a smaller file size than going with raw to jpeg (100% quality)... But going from jpeg to png, I've always got a larger file size. Strange, very strange.

Yes, there's something odd that happens in the conversion from .jpg to .png. I still get smaller files when going from raw to .png