Close
This post was deleted. Reason: duplicate. MD5: 9bcfd44426f7723dc730f36710046bf8
This post belongs to a parent post.
Search
Tags
Statistics
Options
Related Posts




Edit | Respond

Mr GT
over 7 years ago
Not a duplicate as there's some changes between this and post #405167
fireattack
over 7 years ago
I didn't see any. By my comparison script:

Sizes are identical! (1447x2047)
Color modes are identical! (RGBA)
They are pixel-wise identical.
Mr GT
over 7 years ago
Erh what? The color on post #405167 seem slightly more faded/lighter compared to this one.

post #405167, 1.85 MB
post #405279, 1.97 MB
fireattack
over 7 years ago
I'd assume you compare them side by side (instead of layer one on the other and switch between), and thus the color difference is due to your monitor.

And they're PNGs, the size difference is because of different (lossless) compression ratios.
Mr GT
over 7 years ago
fireattack said:
I'd assume you compare them side by side (instead of layer one on the other and switch between), and thus the color difference is due to your monitor.

Edit: the only difference is the twitter one has some 90+% transparent pixels on the edge to avoid twitter's JPEG compression. But content-wise, they're identical.
Well that explains the so-called "color" different and here I thought I had something. Also god dammit Twitter with your ass-backward compression method. I'm really starting to dislike Twitter now.
fireattack
over 7 years ago
Mr_GT said:
Well that explains the so-called "color" different and here I thought I had something. Also god dammit Twitter with your ass-backward compression method. I'm really starting to dislike Twitter now.
I actually misread it in Photoshop. There is no difference in alpha channel either, both have some (same) transparent pixels on the edge. But yeah, it's stupid you have to do so to let Twitter to not compress your images..