Are you supposed to use JPG or PNG when it comes to pictures off of videos?

The frames are already in the video so you could save space by extracting them only when needed :^)

Depends on the content. If it's one of PNG's strong suits (e.g. graphs) and the JPG compression didn't introduce too many artifacts you can still achieve a smaller file size.

The problem with PNG is that it can't compress gradients efficiently, so I can't make any promises for that 2MB limit. Make sure --screenshot-png-compression=9. Not sure if looking into PNG optimization is even worth it in your case.

which one is "better" in this case? JPG or PNG?

my.mixtape.moe/aoasoo.jpg
my.mixtape.moe/izxpyn.png

>which one is "better"
For what purpose? If you only plan to look at them yourself both should do fine. If you plan to use it for further editing or comparisons (e.g. mpv settings) then go with PNG.
It should be mentioned that you can optimize this png (without losses) quite a bit actually. I got it from 2.6 MiB (2,703,761 bytes) down to 1.8 MiB (1,936,976 bytes).

Attached: ect.png (1920x1080, 1.85M)

how? pngcrush?

github.com/fhanau/Efficient-Compression-Tool

Worrying about file size is for virgins. Be a Chad and save everything png

For relatively simple images with many single-colored surfaces, such as anime, use PNG. For other more complex images such as photographs, use JPG.

It takes forever to take a screenshot with png on mpv for some reason

how does this work on Windows

This is because of the increased compression level. Higher level = more time needed for compression. Lower compression levels will decrease the necessary time, but will result in larger files. However you can take the screenshot with a low compression then optimize it afterwards.

You'd have to compile it from source. For Windows pingo is probably the better alternative. Slightly less efficient, but faster.

is there a difference between quality when it comes to pingo and ect?

css-ig.net/png-tools-overview#overview

Storage is cheap, png for everything these days.

Not if you stick with pingo's lossless optimization (using -s1 to -s9).

pingo - (26.50s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
82 files => 313870.44 KB - (62.80%) saved
----------------------------------------------------------------

not bad, that's with no compression on mpv and "-s0" on pingo, but i want to bring it down to 1.5mb to 2mb per image

before: my.mixtape.moe/zimure.png
after: my.mixtape.moe/bbffoi.png

>screenshot-high-bit-depth

should this be on or off, if i want perfection (lossless)?

1.85MB PNG

lol

Fuckig stupid anime loser

If your goal was lossless optimization, then you did something wrong. bbffoi.png differs from zimure.png.
In this case I only managed to get the original down to about 2.4MiB. So if you want to get between 1.5MiB and 2MiB then lossy compression seems to be necessary.

Attached: diff.png (1920x1080, 86K)

seems to be right, i am also only capable of getting it down to 2.0-3.0 MB with the "-s9" option on pingo

s0 is the quickest way to compress something, while s9 is the slowest way? are there any differences beside that

No, it's only about time/efficiency trade-off.

what does s9 do which s0 can't do?

The gist of all those optimizers is that they try a bunch of different compression settings and see what produces the smallest file size. Slower presets just test more possible settings and have a higher chance to produce even smaller files.

I feel dumb for using JPG, because I could've optimized PNG files to a smaller size without losing any quality

oh well, I'll just have to deal with millions of old lossy pictures in my storage and start using PNG now

Attached: 1509563062038.png (474x473, 20K)

do you fucking have superman eyes? so fucking save it as jpg.

No but I have a 4k monitor and I can see the difference between JPG and PNG when it's from the same source

Just use FLIF
It's got the best of both worlds and more.

how do I use it with mpv or mpc?

no, you can't. only if it's a shit jpg or zoomed up to 500%

have a plugin that takes the screenshot in png then converts it to FLIF probably

Have you never used a 4k monitor before

I can see the pixels on everything without doing anything

there doesn't seem to be much support for FLIF

you can have a perfect format, but if there is no group to sponsor it, it's going to rot

sorry for you Neo

Attached: nn.jpg (680x510, 72K)

jpg for photos taken in real life
png for graphics/screenshots made on a computer

FLIF can do both, better and more

FLIF is very good for lossless, but lossy isn't exactly it's strong suit. See wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/report.html (that's more up-to-date than the comparisons hosted on FLIF's website)
Plus (like the other user already mentioned) support is pretty much non-existent. I can't even view any FLIF images because of this bug
github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF/issues/415

Interesting

JPG 100% was 350 MB, but I accidentally deleted the folder

Attached: 1537457193433.jpg (1134x610, 169K)