Why I never render PNG
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 03. 2024
- 🔽 The full playlist: Master Optimization in Blender 🔽
• Master Optimization in...
The article that sparked the video 👉 skientia.co/cgi/image-formats...
Downloadable image of the decision tree 👉 1drv.ms/i/s!AuLCSE-VGaTGgY0hf...
A few amendments to the video. Thanks commenters for pointing this out.
Yeah, no. A little bit too misleading for me.
Great explanation! But, regarding deliverables, one should always talk to the client, or in my case, check with the printer first. The printer told me that he prefers 16 bit TIFFs for best quality. The test prints for my upcoming exhibition are looking gorgeous, btw. 😎
this is what happens when non programmers make a video on a file format 😂
OK, so PNG is lossless, JPG is not. Just that is simple to decide. JPG can't do lossless, just can't, simple as that. Another factor is that PNG is opensource, this format will ALWAYS be readable, as the specs are opensource and will also be available in 20 years, 50 years and 100 years, while many of the formats that you mention will not, because they are proprietary and closed. Also, EXR can be a pain in the a** to display, as not all viewers will support them. PNG is the most universal, while not sacrificing any quality. ALSO, how big are drives today? Even a 1 TB SSD costs pretty much nothing, HDD goes up to over 10 TBs, you will never be able to make that many pics to ever come even close to filling that. So space does not matter, not in the year 2024, saving a few megabytes is a waste of time and the time you waste is much more expensive and precious (time is limited in everybodies life) ESPECIALLY when you are a hobbyist and just want lossless and something that will always work, easy and out of the box, without being an exotic rarely ever used format, PNG is the winner.
My blending is so god damn optimized right now, you have no idea
The reason jpeg is smaller is because you loose a lot of information about the Hue even if your setting is acceptable for your eyes that are better at detecting contrasts. If you do professional work please use png as it correctly stores the result of your render, jpeg does not and it would show as soon as you start doing color corections. For your delivery still use png as it's the most accurate output you can give too. If you don't know if you need lossless, you do. Always. As for the test shown with the difference layer on a png, what it was is the color space change. If someone needs a smaller size he can always convert the images. If the goal is to convert the images to video at some point you would have double compression on jpg. Stick to 16bit png for work and delivering with 8bit png is fine.
As a consumer of a lot of online renders, I've learned that some image sharing websites will do extra compression of JPGs. That's why people "accuse" JPG of being low quality, because like it or not, a lot of places will take the opportunity to compress it "a little bit", which when the image is reshared, websites will compress it "a little bit" again. That's why terms like "Needs more JPEG" exists. Trying to do the same thing with PNG would only make the PNG load slower, but no quality reduction (though nowadays some sites seem to convert to JPG anyway). Additionally, I have one friend who does 2D art and was told to render in JPG "due to its lower quality" to try to sell the "full, proper quality" elsewhere like a patron subscription service. It's much harder to deliver a low-quality PNG than a JPG.
PNG is a container format. The video is like saying “never use a square fridge” … has little to do with the food inside.
Your comparison between the EXR and PNG isn't showing the difference in compression quality. PNG exports with SDR tonemapping, whereas EXR export are linear unclipped HDR data. This means you will see a big difference in the brighter areas, which are squashed down when doing SDR tonemapping. You should have exported the PNG with linear tonemapping and clipped the EXR to a max of 1.0 to get a perfect comparison.
Good video, but comparing zoomed in JPEG and PNG should have been done without interpolation, as that defeats the purpose of the comparison.
I think the comparison at
0:55
Amazingly well laid out, thank you. I have been using .png since my photography days, so this is a game changer for me!
Learning about DWAA EXRs a few years ago blew my mind. Why this didn't become the gold standard for decently compressed high quality outputs IMMEDIATELY is just mind boggling to me. We've had this format for so long and it's been practically ignored for like half its existence.
Very much appriciate your effort. The whole series is a must See and very well done.
the video that i needed years ago, but i'm glad it's here now
amazing video as always
Absolutely amazing video, great source for the video, and just a great explanation!
That was incredibly informative 😮