Here is a jpeg with a bit better quality. I put it as close to 4KB, without going over, as I could. I don't think you will be able to get a PNG under 4JB unless you clip the size of the graphic.
PNG can do it. A lot of editors use PNG32 mode which is not ideal. PNG8 will reduce the size by a factor of x2 or x3, and as the one I posted only has 256-colours anyway, it won't look any different.
It is very faint, but if you look at the lightened area (gray shades) you can see tiny artifacts in both images. In the second one, I found them most notable in the top part of the image.
This is way JPG compression works: It chops the image into uniform squares, each one with variable-fill. With uncompressed JPG, each pixel is a square, with highly compressed JPG the squares are huge and cover many pixels.
JPG/PNG/GIF all work differently so they all have different results. JPG is best for high-colour photos. GIF is good for low-colour diagrams. The value of PNG is entirely dependent on the editor being used.
I am quick to notice artifact, and I score 120% in colour perception. I'm a freak
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.