Vista Screenshots

[drizzt81]

Given that Vista has all the eye-candy (gradients etc.) would it be smarter to take screenshots in PNG, as was the smart thing to do in WinXP, or rather as JPG? I know the latter messes up text, but I was curious about file size.

 

[djnes]

I think it depends on what you plan to do with them. If they are screenshots for print, that will be delivered by hard-copy, I'd go with PNG. If you plan to post them on a website or a forum, I'd go with JPG.

 

[drizzt81]

I think it depends on what you plan to do with them. If they are screenshots for print, that will be delivered by hard-copy, I'd go with PNG. If you plan to post them on a website or a forum, I'd go with JPG.

Well, most screenshots are designed to illustrate something, for example "how do I deactivate UAC"

 

[GJSNeptune]

I'd rather downgrade quality than be stuck with something that may not scale well.

 

[djnes]

Well, most screenshots are designed to illustrate something, for example "how do I deactivate UAC"

I understand that. What I meant was, how or through what medium, these images will be displayed. If it's on the web, you wouldn't want PNG files, due to the higher file size. If this is for a printed guide, such as one I hand out to my new-hires, PNG is fine, and in fact is preferred.

 

[drizzt81]

I understand that. What I meant was, how or through what medium, these images will be displayed. If it's on the web, you wouldn't want PNG files, due to the higher file size. If this is for a printed guide, such as one I hand out to my new-hires, PNG is fine, and in fact is preferred.

I guess my question was phrased poorly:
When taking WinXP screenshots (no background, ALT+PrtScn) PNG encoded images are smaller and better quality, hence preferable for both web and print. I guess this has changed with Vista, where JPG is now preferable for Web, PNG for print?

I'd rather downgrade quality than be stuck with something that may not scale well.

What scale are you talking about here? PNGs are lossless for all I have heard, hence they would resize better than JPG compressed images, which is a lossy algorithm.

 

[djnes]

You must be using better software than I am. My PNG files are always quite a bit larger than JPGs. PNGs are definitely a higher quality picture, which would support enlargment much better. If you are scaling down the images, you won't see as much of a difference between the two.

 

[drizzt81]

You must be using better software than I am. My PNG files are always quite a bit larger than JPGs. PNGs are definitely a higher quality picture, which would support enlargement much better. If you are scaling down the images, you won't see as much of a difference between the two.

The following three files were compressed with mspaint, which is included in windows:
GIF: (28k)

JPG: (62k)

PNG: (51k)

I am sure that with a better program, the GIF size and quality can be improved.

 

[GJSNeptune]

I usually paste screenshots in Paint and save as a bitmap, or if I just need to show someone something quickly, I use IrfanView (if in a hurry) or Photoshop to save as a JPG.

I've found PNGs to not be as widely compatible or versatile as JPGs, and even with Photoshop my PNGs can be quite large. Plus Photoshop converts to JPG so well that I find no need to save in a higher quality format.

 

[djnes]

I use Paint Shop Pro 9, and my PNG files have usually been double the size of the JPG, if not much more. It's not that hard for me to have PNG files well over 1 Mb. If the file sizes are roughly the same, I'd still consider the medium. Most web browsers can display PNG files just fine, but JPG still wins that compatibility battle. There's no arguing about the overall quality however.