why though? The graphics represented in the screen are already squashed and scaled, so you wouldn’t be preserving their quality in any case. If you’re worried about text, JPEG should still be able to handle it under high quality settings
Dude. Did you even read what I wrote? PNG is bad for photos. Your example is a photo.
Go ahead and try the same with a screenshot with text and menus showing.
PNG started out as ZIP(BMP) and hasn’t gotten that much better. Use JPEG. The pixels you lose are not worth crying about
JPEG for graphics like screenshots is not very efficient. For stuff like that, png is simply superior. (But not with compression 0)
PNG is not good for photos though.
why though? The graphics represented in the screen are already squashed and scaled, so you wouldn’t be preserving their quality in any case. If you’re worried about text, JPEG should still be able to handle it under high quality settings
We can ask the same the other way around: why do you want to use jpg if it results in a bigger size and worse quality than png?
But that’s patently untrue: take this 10 MB example TIFF file as an example.
PNG Compression, max compress (=quality 9):
JPG Encoding, 99% quality (=quality 99):
Final file size comparison:
PNG is significantly larger, and difference in quality between them is negligible
png - jpg
jpg with 80% compression, via krita.
As B0rax said, for screenshots, png is better - it can represent line graphics and text more efficiently.
Dude. Did you even read what I wrote? PNG is bad for photos. Your example is a photo. Go ahead and try the same with a screenshot with text and menus showing.