cr88192 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 I am not sure how many have noticed (or if this issue has already been addressed), but the default PNG compression in Paint.NET is pretty bad. (both my own PNG encoder, and also GIMP, manage to produce PNG files often around 1/2 the size). (my encoder is nothing really fancy either, it usually just defaults usually to Paeth filtering, and the deflate encoder in my case uses greedy-search, so nothing fancy here either). not sure the reason here, but can whatever is the issue here be addressed?... yes, I know about the OptiPNG plugin, but this isn't really the issue, rather, there would seem to be an issue with the default encoder, as there is no "good" reason I know of why the output should be this large. if it is something simple, like turning up the compression level for the deflater or similar, well then, this is the request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddLlama Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 If you know about OptiPNG, why don't you just use it? It's there... Quote Here is my website - http://www.oddllama.cu.cc Here is my gallery - http://oddalpaca.deviantart.com/gallery Am I odd? - yes Am I a llama? - yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr88192 Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 I am using it already... the issue though is, why should we need a plugin for something which should otherwise be presumably handled (at least moderately well) by the default encoder?... like, it doesn't need to produce the smallest possible files, but ideally shouldn't be spitting out files around 2x larger than what other comparable (not-very-fancy) encoders are spitting out. this implies that there is actually a problem in the encoder somewhere (or, the use of a low compression-level setting for deflate...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr88192 Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 based on further investigation, I suspect MS may be to blame for the lackluster PNG compression?... (with PDN using the .NET provided "System.Drawing" APIs, rather than implementing the PNG-saving code itself ?...). if so, fair enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrochild Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Yes, Paint.NET uses the built-in codecs for most of its supported filetypes. It's a case of being good enough for most purposes and preferring to spend time on cool new features rather than reinventing the wheel. Remember, Paint.NET only has one developer. Quote ambigram signature by Kemaru [i write plugins and stuff] If you like a post, upvote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr88192 Posted November 12, 2012 Author Share Posted November 12, 2012 fair enough, but then again, I am a lone developer as well, but wrote most of my own codecs (for my 3D / game-engine project). then again, I am mostly developing off in C land, where it is much more common for people to write their own code (for pretty much everything...). I basically noted that .NET provided built-in image codecs mostly while throwing together a plugin for "JPEG+alpha channels" ( mentioned here: ), and made the observation: PNG support is provided by .NET, and has the same characteristic "not very good"-ness, leading to the prediction that PDN is probably using it. the mystery then is why MS made such a not-very-good PNG codec?... (maybe squeezing another 20-40% off the file-sizes just wasn't really a big priority?...). but, alas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.