101–110 of 121 posts
In case anyone else was suspicious of the 20k file size for a 512x512 PNG with essentially two colors - it's way off. I dropped it into Photoshop and exported as PNG and it spit out an identical file that weighs in at 6k.
At what point does using a vector SVG is worse than raster image? Level of image complexit, requiring a ton of path elements? the Twitter logo can be create in basically 2 path elements. What if my logo is much more complex? Is there a threshold at the complexity of my image results in an SVG payload > than a properly compressed raster image?
I draw comics in Illustrator, and I have created files that are larger than the corresponding 300dpi TIFF. I think the first page in http://egypt.urnash.com/rita/chapter/viii/ is one of them, that dense setting at the bottom is super complicated.
(And it's a TON larger if I save the file as a pdf, Illustrator is doing a lot of high level abstraction to make this file smaller, that I’m not sure if SVG can handle.)
On the one hand, this is pretty common knowledge. On the other hand, none of the responses so far have brought it up, and the logo website itself seems to think that the cited sources can license the use of the artwork in question. I do not quite know what to make of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"simple" that's a very subjective term. Is there a way to quantify simplicity in terms of SVG? Can we say number of points & number of paths? What other constructs can be used to measure complexity?
There isn't really. Any of those things could be used as proxies (plus file size, number of XML elements, rendering time, and more), but the thing we are really interested in is subjective anyway. File size after rendering to bitmap and lossy compression, like JPEG, might actually be one of the best quantitative proxies for simplicity, because lossy compression algorithms are designed to compress visual data that's i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, that Viber icon looks odd. Is it my browser or is it just poorly drawn?
Looks pretty close to https://www.viber.com/app/uploads/Icon_1024.png for me Just a little sheared if anything? Can always attribute to stylizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop: 6 705 bytes, 128 colors, 1-bit alpha only TinyPNG: 6 179 bytes, 92 colors Optimage: 5 761 bytes, 154 colors TinyPNG + Optimage (lossless): 5 226 bytes, 92 colors https://imgur.com/a/X9DnJ TinyPNG tends to use fewer colors. But its compressor is pretty suboptimal. I could reduce the image further by 15.4% with the tool I'm making ( http://getoptimage.com ).
3545 bytes: https://i.imgur.com/dHIaRh1.png Used Gimp to convert to 4-bit paletted colormap, and processed through optipng. The original PNG icon was very clearly suboptimal at 20 225 bytes...
You can also losslessly compress it down to 2 803 bytes: https://imgur.com/a/SunI7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For tiny images like icons, where intricacies are hard to see, it's likely they will almost always be better in svg. Logos especially are generally by nature clean and simple to be able to quickly communicate brand through different mediums. From a practical sense, I'd be hard pressed to find a real logo/icon that wasn't better in SVG. Theoretically, of course there are limits, but the rule of thumb is strong: always…
Gradients are sometimes translated strangely--I used illustrator to cover some .eps graphics to svg that were given to me by some company and the gradients got funky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> confusing UI Anything particular you have in mind?
Most of the time, when I run InkScape to edit an existing .SVG, it's because I want to just select and drag a few vector endpoints a bit to one side or the other to make minor tweaks. I'd venture that's true for most users. However, it doesn't seem to be the default behavior. I always have to remember how to get into the right selection mode, because the authors seem to think I most likely want to drag the entire ima…
> the authors seem to think I most likely want to drag the entire image around.
I don't think that is the default, unless the whole image happens to have been grouped into a single element, which might of course be the case.
I bet many of these would be even smaller in SWF, since that's a very efficient (bit-packed, and then compressed) binary format specifically designed for small filesize, as opposed to the textual XML of SVG (although SVG is not really "XML-ish" in the sense that path data is still a list of points, and not one-element-per-point.)