[ars]

It's rare when this is good advice.

Most of the time you want PNG for drawn images. JPEG is only for photos taken with a camera.

You just happened to have images with lots of gradients, but most of the time PNG does a better job.

Also when you downsampled the images, whatever program you used was not very good. When I tried it the images were always one row better than what you showed. i.e. when I changed it to 128, it looked like your 256, and my 64 looked like you 128, etc.

[ergo98]

>Most of the time you want PNG for drawn images. JPEG is only for photos taken with a camera.

You clarified this in your next line, however the above summary, particularly the comment on JPEGs, is wrong.

PNGs are appropriate for areas with common colors, and where clarity is critical - most logos, charts, web comics, etc.

JP(e)G is appropriate for photorealistic images, where there are significant varations, such as, of course, photos, rendered images, photorealistic images, and so on.

I am kind of shocked that anyone is having this discussion right now. This is like circa 1995 that these sorts of discussions were cutting edge (though it was GIF versus JPEG)

[callahad]

> This is like circa 1995 that these sorts of discussions were cutting edge

Of course, people born in 1995 are now 15 years old, a good age to begin figuring out the nuances of image formats.

[warfangle]

"Also when you downsampled the images, whatever program you used was not very good"

Given that it's turnkeylinux, I think it's a safe bet that they were using Gimp.

Which completely explains the low quality of the output.