wtf..? Since when..? ping files take up an awful lot more space, with jpg you can use the quantizer and get logical compression -or- opt to take the unoptimized version.

Images will only get messed up when saved in JPEG format if the program saving it as such does it. For example: Photoshop can be used to lower the size of a JPEG file at the cost of quality, the quality can be kept at it's maximum if you leave it uncompressed. PNG files maintain a quality because they don't contain a compression ability that is why you will always have consistent quality with one, however many websites and programs don't contain support for PNG files which is why they find a niche in art forums and for use in model rendering.

PNG compression works by making a raster of the colors used in the image rather than all the colors (like a BMP would). It's lossless, which is sweet, but if you use lots of colors the filesize gets large. You can also pick a maximum number of colors, and the image program will change each pixel to the closest one of a set. This sets a maximum on the file size, which is handy. PNG is the best for cartoon-style images with few colors.

JPEG does some frequency analysis and breaks the image into blocks, each block being colored by a pattern. Near edges, the blocks are small, in large areas with smooth coloring the blocks will be large. Then the image is Huffman-encoded (like a zip file), saving more space. Typically JPEGs are good for real-life pictures, since it handles lots of colors well, but the area near edges can look murky if the compression ratio is set too high.

At least, this is what I remember as the basic design philosophy of the two types.

Another trial, I like how this one turned out. samurai

Haha, very nice.

I like seeing the progression of quality, due to the help of the other forumers.

Its a nice picture, but the camera angle is a bit obscure, its a tad hard to tell what's what.