User talk:Zombie
Here is a recent discussion from the main page about images. Instead of deleting it, I decided to add it to my talk page. Conclusion reached was that PNG's are the preferred image choice for the wiki as most X-COM screenshots are well-suited to this format and are smaller than a GIF. JPEG's should only be considered for pictures as the quality sucks. --Zombie 13:45, 25 June 2006 (PDT)
Image Types
I was fooling around with images today and decided I should show everyone what an image looks like in a particular format. Just for this example, I used the Level 0 view of the Small Scout. Here are the images (don't peek, just look at them and try to figure out which is which for now):
From what I can tell, the image quality of a GIF and a PNG is minimal. Both look very good. The PNG image seems a tad bit lighter over the GIF, though. Not bad. But compare either a GIF or a PNG with a JPEG and there is a huge difference. The JPEG has "artifacts" strewn all over the place and has a "mottled" appearance. Ugh! Terrible! That's all for the image quality aspect. (So does anyone know the technical difference between a GIF and a PNG? Please explain.)
Let's move on to size. The GIF image is usually the largest in size. In this case the GIF image of the Scout example is 7897 bytes. The JPEG is 6784 bytes (or 86% of the GIF) while the PNG is 6090 bytes (or 77% of the GIF).
Finally, compare size against image quality. PNG wins hands down. Not only is it smaller in size, but it also has an image quality equaling that of a GIF. JPEGs are smaller than a GIF but the image quality sucks. Granted, in some instances a JPEG is fine (especially if the background is a dark color), but in all the comparisons I did they were bad.
So, have you figured out what is what? The first image is a GIF, the second is a PNG and the third is a JPEG.
I implore everyone to consider uploading either a GIF or a PNG image type over a JPEG. The quality is better in those formats. If you have a choice, PNG is better because of the size on disc. --Zombie 19:40, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
The most important difference between PNG and GIF is GIFs can only use 256 colors. I think most graphics from Enemy Unknown are in 8-bit color, so it doesn't cause a problem, but if you ever converted a normal photo to GIF, it'd look horrendous. PNGs can handle "truecolor" (24-bit), and as you said, they tend to compress better too.
JPGs can have different "quality settings" which reduce the artifacts but increase file size. JPG tends to compress photos better than PNG, but PNG is great for non-natural images, such as cartoons or computer graphics. For graphics pulled from X-COM, PNG is probably best.
--Ethereal Cereal 21:43, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
PNG's can vary in size depending on the size of the palette used. A standard 256 colour image would allow PNGs to be more or less the same if not better than GIFs. 'True Colour' PNGs are generally abominations.
For more information on the PNG format: Portable Network Graphics
GIF and PNG provide lossless compression while Jpeg's offer lossy compression. GIF and PNGs are best used when the image is generally small and contains a limited number of colours. X-Com screenshots fit this bill perfectly.
Jpegs tend to lose image accuracy every time you save the image and it gets worse the higher you set the compression. However, that said, Jpegs are best used when your image is full of colour and minor losses in image quality will not matter.
For example, the above pictures are best done with GIF/PNGs (especially if you intend to include transparent pixels). However if you had a cut out shot of the action in the battlescape, it probably wouldn't matter too much if it were saved as a Jpeg.
Now if you want an image with transparency pixels, you will most definitely pick GIF and PNG. I actually hadn't realised the PNG format allowed tranparencies, but it does.
Just use what's best for the occasion.
- NKF
In Which an Uneccessary Discussion of Formats Ensues
PNG's not only do transparency, but they are capable of doing alpha channel-- that is, partial transparency. A GIF can only do normal colors (completely opaque) or complete transparency. PNG's can do all this, as well as allowing color that are partially transparent (say, a red tint with the background showing through).
I put this in mostly to hear myself talk. There are two limitations to these neato PNG effects:
- For X-Com screen shots, it's not needed-- X-Com 1 and 2 never did such fancy tricks.
- Alpha channel PNG's are, last I checked, not supported by Internet Explorer-- IE will let PNG's mimmick GIF-style transparency (that is, an 8-bit palette with all-or-nothing transparency), but nothing more sophisticated. Firefox and the Mozilla-derived browsers can do them (including Safari, I think), but it's not much good when most of the traffic is still using IE. Yes, I'm bitter about this.
PNG's are in every respect superior to GIF's. In matters of compatibility and filesize, the PNG can be set to work just as well or better than GIF). The only reason you use GIFs is to cater to people with seriously archaic browsers. Widespread PNG support has been around for several years now.
Edit: IE7 does complete support for PNG alpha, but of course it's still in beta testing. Even when it's out of beta, sensible web designers will have to wait until the majority of users switch over to it to start designing with it in mind.
--Papa Legba 20:36, 14 June 2006 (PDT)
GIF was originally made waaaay back in the late 80's. The format recieved an update around 1990, but has not been upgraded since. (Although Microsoft Paint will save lossy GIFs, I don't think this is an attempt to restandardise the format).
Later JPG came along, which really made high color images practical because it compressed so well. That compression came at a cost, however - quality is lost when you save a JPG file, no matter how high you set the quality.
PNG was designed with the intention of replacing GIF. A lot of people started using it once the original GIF copyright ran out - It was re-registered by a company who demanded royalties for anyone who used the format! (Which would only have affected you if you lived in America - of course.)
Although I gather that bit of patent madness has been overthrown, returning GIF to the populance at large, a lot of people still use PNG when possible. JPG files still yield better compression when images have a lot of color depth, however, PNG files do not lose color information, so it's the best format to use whenever quality is important.
I'm not sure if PNG supports multiple images in the one file, however. We've all seen animating GIFs, but I'm sure I've never seen an animating PNG.
One feature I've always wanted added to web browsers is the ability for HTML to referrence individual images loaded into GIF files. That way, you could put all the images into one file, as opposed to lots of little ones. This would improve page load times no end. One example where this would be useful is your average forum skin.
One attempt to animate PNG is MNG. However, development on that appears to have stopped in late 2004 when Mozilla abandoned the format (only one implementation, so hard to catch bugs in the specification).
Regarding PNG transparency/IE5,6: I don't think this is completely portably solvable in MediaWiki. Even if (contrary to what I would expect; need to check documentation for other reasons) JavaScript was enabled in MediaWiki, the general solution is to use that JavaScript to define whether to use HTML-standard, or IE extensions that do render PNG transparency. I haven't tested how to do this with inline images [img tag], but it should be possible to do this inline. Background images require using the JavaScript to define a CSS class, which should be done in the head tag: disallowed.
EDIT: MediaWiki Technical FAQ intimates that JavaScript should be stripped. So, cross-browser PNG transparency not possible by legitimate design for security.
--Zaimoni 11:49, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
I just started a discussion on the main page about this--people are still adding nasty JPGs to the wiki, and I thought we should add a notice somewhere obvious. Phasma Felis 10:57, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
Zombie: Just so you know, armor for aliens is only one of two values. In Beginner, it's 50% the base armor score listed in the game files; in Experienced/Veteran/Genius/Superhuman, the armor rating for aliens is the base listing. This is also why Chryssalids spawned from Zombies are actually MORE dangerous than mission-spawn Chryssalids in Beginner mode, because the Zombie-spawned critters have twice as much armor! (In all other difficulties, Zombie spawned Chryssies are weaker; the armor is the same, but they don't get the above 100% modifiers for their other stats, like TUs, Stamina, Psi Strength, etc.) Arrow Quivershaft 00:43, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
- Why do you mention this? I of all people should know about Alien Stats. Ahem. ;) --Zombie 01:02, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
I thought you did, but your comment to the Stun Rod page about "Veteran-Superhuman" Sectopods kinda threw some doubt on it; so I figured that it was better safe then sorry. Guess I jumped the gun, apologies. (Also, I need to try that "Aliens Own Earth" thing.) Arrow Quivershaft 01:04, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
- Sorry, it was a mistype. Experienced it is. :D --Zombie 01:09, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
Sorry for jumping on you like that. >_> Arrow Quivershaft 01:17, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
- I probably deserved a good beating for a rookie mistake like that. If you catch me doing strange stuff, feel free to edit. --Zombie 01:28, 29 October 2008 (CDT)
New Milestone.
With my previous edit, I now have 2,000 contributions to the Wiki. :) --Zombie 22:25, 20 December 2008 (CST)
- A little over twice as many as me! (This'll be edit 1010). Incidentally, looking at your recent record, it seems you've had a few days off. Busy Zombie, you definitely don't sleep. Wanna leave some editing for the rest of us? ;) All you need to do is ask...or point. Arrow Quivershaft 23:34, 20 December 2008 (CST)
- Do we get a counter? Never noticed that before. One thing about the millions of recent edits: Some of the older and probably less visited articles are brought to the surface again. Some of them are long overdue a bit of preening and pruning. -NKF 01:42, 21 December 2008 (CST)
I didn't realize there was a counter till the last upgrade to the wiki software. If you go to My Preferences and look at your user profile it'll say how many edits you have under your screen name and ID#. @AQ: Yeah, I had a couple days off in the last week due to finals and a heavy snowfall which basically stopped everything. All I've been doing here recently is updating the pages to reflect the nomenclature in-game. Maintaining this consistency is necessary for people trying to find something in a hurry. And my work ethic has always been that if I want something done, I might as well do it myself. With an aging mind, it better to get stuff done while it's still fresh in my memory too. Don't worry, there's still plenty to do around here. There are a lot of articles floating around with little to no text, which need a spell checking, or even a rewrite. TFTD in particular needs some attention. --Zombie 16:35, 21 December 2008 (CST)
- I got that same snowfall, still being only a few hours north, and yeah, we got shut down too. :) As for TFTD, I know it needs attention, but I've never been able to get TFTD to run half-decently. Arrow Quivershaft 16:49, 21 December 2008 (CST)
The New Templates.
Hey Zombie, great job on these new templates, and now we even have a stub template! If possible could we get a template about adding more pictures? If so, thanks! If not, oh well, it wasn't the biggest deal here yet. It would be nice if we did have pictures for every page though. Muton commander 19:35, 8 January 2009 (CST)
- Thanks, the stub template already existed, I just reused it to create pages which needed something in them. The reason for the other templates is to aid in navigation and also cut down on the number of orphaned and dead-end pages (currently 7 and 60 respectively). Eventually I'd like those numbers to be as close to 0 as possible. Anyway, I created a stub picture template out of some of our other table templates. All you need to do is put {{PicStub}} in a page and it'll show up to the right side of the screen. If there isn't much text in the article, you may want to put a clearing break ( <br clear="all"> ) after it to keep the template from continuing into the "See Also" heading, for example. Other than that, it's pretty simple to use. --Zombie 23:10, 8 January 2009 (CST)