Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · Sep 23, 2006, 09:37 PM

Doesn't this seem kind of odd to you?

Introducing Aperture Tour

Do people still use GIFs for stuff like this? It's horribly pixelated on my screen, and at 52 KB it's not even that small.

Just asking as a consumer, cuz I'm not a web designer.

KeriVit · Sep 23, 2006, 09:46 PM

Looks fine here, but I suppose when the target is Photographers...

macintologist · Sep 23, 2006, 09:52 PM

SHouldnt it be a PNG or something?

indigoimac · Sep 23, 2006, 09:58 PM

They've been using dome pretty high res jpgs for their main site lately, maybe they trying to save some bandwidth on the stuff that most people won't see.

turtle777 · Sep 24, 2006, 12:47 AM

I can't help but think it's intentional.

-t

Eug Wanker · Sep 24, 2006, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by KeriVit

Looks fine here

Look more closely, at the colour gradients.

...but I suppose when the target is Photographers...

Indeed, especially when the app is an image manipulation tool, whose primary output is JPEG files.

This is what it looks like on the main page. The colour gradients are much smoother, which isn't surprising considering it's a JPEG.

turtle777 · Sep 24, 2006, 01:14 AM

Oh, btw, what's 1999 have to do with it ?

-t

Eug Wanker · Sep 24, 2006, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by indigoimac

They've been using dome pretty high res jpgs for their main site lately, maybe they trying to save some bandwidth on the stuff that most people won't see.

Except that the GIF file is 52 KB already. That JPEG I posted is only 32 KB. It's a physically smaller pic, but you can imagine one the same dimensions wouldn't be much larger in terms of KB.

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Oh, btw, what's 1999 have to do with it ?

Back in 1999, HTML tutorials for beginners (like me) used to always suggest using GIF files to save on bandwidth.

So, images like this:

...would look like this:

The top pic is a 64 KB JPEG. The bottom pic is a 52 KB GIF.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 24, 2006, 01:42 AM

I'm guessing here, but I would say that they wanted the logo to be very sharp (along with the text) and wanted a smaller file size.

Also, it's only 49kb from my records. I think they could have gotten a jpg that small, but the logo and text probably would have looked very bad.

Chuckit · Sep 24, 2006, 02:15 AM

In general, unless your picture has very few colors, a JPEG will look a lot better than a GIF at the same size. A photo will usually look better as a 16 KB JPEG than as a 40 KB GIF, in my experience.

torsoboy · Sep 24, 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I'm guessing here, but I would say that they wanted the logo to be very sharp (along with the text) and wanted a smaller file size.

Also, it's only 49kb from my records. I think they could have gotten a jpg that small, but the logo and text probably would have looked very bad.

That's what I was thinking... text always looks soooo crappy on jpgs, they probably wanted to avoid that.

Eug Wanker · Sep 24, 2006, 02:35 AM

48 KB JPEG:

torsoboy · Sep 24, 2006, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

48 KB JPEG:

Okay, now try to take a straight text image and compress it to 10k and see which handles it better.

But I see your point... Apple could have used that instead.

Chuckit · Sep 24, 2006, 03:00 AM

Which do you think looks better?

48 KB GIF:

48 KB JPEG:

torsoboy · Sep 24, 2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Which do you think looks better?

48 KB GIF:

48 KB JPEG:

Test it on a more compressed image... show us it at 15k.

MaxPower2k3 · Sep 24, 2006, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Test it on a more compressed image... show us it at 15k.

why? The image in question from Apple was 48kb. Anything else is irrelevant.

Eug Wanker · Sep 24, 2006, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Okay, now try to take a straight text image and compress it to 10k and see which handles it better.

Well, the point is it's not a straight text image.

16 KB JPEG:

18 KB GIF:

IceEnclosure · Sep 24, 2006, 03:51 AM

JPEG wins.

Oisín · Sep 24, 2006, 05:08 AM

Do people still use GIFs for stuff like this?

The better question is: Do people still use GIFs for anything?

Apart from small, short animated GIFs, I see absolutely no use for the entire GIF format anymore. Since ie7 was made, it’s not even needed for IE-compatible transparency.

OwlBoy · Sep 24, 2006, 06:17 AM

~3k GIF

~3k JEPG

Eh? Not sure if this is relevant, but I wanted to show something other than white on black.

- Graphic/text/line art = gif
- Photo/gradiant = jpeg
- Mix of the 2 = jpeg that is not overly compressed.

-Owl

Oisín · Sep 24, 2006, 07:21 AM

I’m too lazy to open up Photoshop now, but wouldn’t a PNG of that picture be compressable to about the same size without any perceptible loss as well?

OwlBoy · Sep 24, 2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Oisín

I’m too lazy to open up Photoshop now, but wouldn’t a PNG of that picture be compressable to about the same size without any perceptible loss as well?

8-bit png would be the same as a gif in quality, and when at the same file size

24-bit png would be much bigger than the jpeg. (About 110k for this image: http://images.apple.com/aperture/images/lens.jpg)

24-bit png is lossless if I understand it right.

-Owl

ghporter · Sep 24, 2006, 08:01 AM

Eug, I would not have known why the first image you posted looked odd, but I would have known that it was. On being directed to the color gradients in the reflections, it became very obvious that the picture has cruddy resolution.

And looking at the pictures of kitty (kitty's pretty freaked out!), you can see a lot of difference-the reflections in his(?) eyes are much flatter looking in the GIF, and you can even note some pixelation around his irises... All that loss of detail without a significant reduction of file size.

But what it comes down to is that you'd think an ad on an APPLE WEB PAGE about a PHOTOGRAPHIC TOOL would be both stunning and technically well executed. That it is not just boggles the mind.

I think GIF is useful for some things-button images, small images like menu bars, and such, but only when the image is crafted to avoid the many problems that GIF brings with it.

rickey939 · Sep 24, 2006, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Toonces?

Mithras · Sep 24, 2006, 08:37 AM

This thread is awesome. You guys are the greatest. Seriously, it's so charming how seriously we take all of this.

Mastrap · Sep 24, 2006, 08:58 AM

Somebody at Apple made a mistake. Simple.

Edit: Some joker saved all of the images on that page as gifs. I just sent some feedback to Apple about it.

turtle777 · Sep 24, 2006, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mithras

Seriously, it's so charming how seriously we take all of this.

MacNN: setting new standards in fanboiism since 1999.

-t

Ghoser777 · Sep 24, 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by rickey939

Toonces?

Nice!

Chuckit · Sep 24, 2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

~3k GIF

~3k JEPG

Eh? Not sure if this is relevant, but I wanted to show something other than white on black.

- Graphic/text/line art = gif
- Photo/gradiant = jpeg
- Mix of the 2 = jpeg that is not overly compressed.

-Owl

Like I said, for a very low-color image (that image is only 16 colors), GIF has the advantage. For any other picture, JPEG will normally look better at the same file size. But yeah, I agree with your recommendations.

Eug Wanker · Sep 24, 2006, 02:55 PM

Heh. Today, I learned about Toonces.

himself · Sep 24, 2006, 04:07 PM

It may be because Apple wanted to make use of transparency in the image (observe the rounded corners), so gif may have been the best option. They could have used .png, but as I understand some browsers (*cough*I.E.*cough*) don't fully support the .png format.

Oisín · Sep 24, 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by himself

It may be because Apple wanted to make use of transparency in the image (observe the rounded corners), so gif may have been the best option. They could have used .png, but as I understand some browsers (*cough*I.E.*cough*) don't fully support the .png format.

... which is where ie7 comes into the picture

Chuckit · Sep 25, 2006, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by himself

It may be because Apple wanted to make use of transparency in the image (observe the rounded corners)

The corners aren't transparent as far as I can see. They're just white.

rickey939 · Sep 25, 2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Heh. Today, I learned about Toonces.

You are welcome.

OwlBoy · Sep 25, 2006, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Oisín

... which is where ie7 comes into the picture

Too bad its IE6 that is still the majority.

-Owl

Angus_D · Sep 25, 2006, 10:15 AM

You all need to get out more.

Salty · Sep 25, 2006, 11:14 AM

They really should have just used multiple images. A gif for the text and a jpg for the lower section. That said jpegs always make text look like ass.

Oisín · 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Too bad its IE6 that is still the majority.

-Owl

No, Dean Edwards’ ie7, which will make IE6 at least acceptibly bad to work with.

Chuckit · Sep 25, 2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

They really should have just used multiple images. A gif for the text and a jpg for the lower section. That said jpegs always make text look like ass.

Have you looked at this thread?

OwlBoy · Sep 26, 2006, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

You all need to get out more.

For many of us it is our job to know these things.

-Owl

MindFad · Sep 26, 2006, 01:31 AM

That is a pretty mean GIF ("jiff" for all you silly "giff"-sayers).*

Whomever's doing that seminars page likes him some GIFs.

* For thread longevity and bickering.

Dakar · Sep 26, 2006, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by MindFad

That is a pretty mean GIF ("jiff" for all you silly "giff"-sayers).*

Whomever's doing that seminars page likes him some GIFs.

* For thread longevity and bickering.

Well, since you threw down the gauntlet... Do you pronounce graphics jraphics?

turtle777 · Sep 26, 2006, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well, since you threw down the gauntlet... Do you pronounce graphics jraphics?

And Juantanamo

-t

Railroader · Sep 26, 2006, 10:01 AM

Don't forget jiraffe!

Kr0nos · Sep 26, 2006, 10:04 AM

One of the first things you learn about doing graphics work for the web, is that you use .gif for images with fewer colors and transparencies (like illustrations) and .jpg for pictures with a wide spectrum of colors (photos, complex compositions)

Text looks just fine in .jpgs when you're doing them in PS or Fireworks. Sometimes .pngs are better, but most of the time .jpg is what you're looking for (especially since IE doesn't really support the .png format all that well).

Dakar · Sep 26, 2006, 10:05 AM

My point is more specific: it's Graphics Interchange Format. Graphics has a hard 'g'.

Railroader · Sep 26, 2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

My point is more specific: it's Graphics Interchange Format. Graphics has a hard 'g'.

Maybe you should ask the giraffe about that.

Dakar · Sep 26, 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Maybe you should ask the giraffe about that.

Whether graphics has a hard g? I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

MaxPower2k3 · Sep 26, 2006, 10:09 AM

Choosy graphic designers choose "Jiff"

Dakar · Sep 26, 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

Choosy graphic designers choose "Jiff"

I don't care what they eat.