Something i made in Class
 

Well i was bored in class.. I havent done graphics in awhile so i was like.. What the hell..
So i came up with this.. I know my handle is pissing me off too.. I dont even like either one iv come up with.. but here ya go.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...aizan/gun2.jpg

Comments?

Besides from the handle, it looks GREAT!

Hmmmm
YOu could have used more aa
agreed with ziro, the handle....
its bad quality because its JPG....hmmmrmmrmmrm

^ Ignore

Antia aliasing in a program which is probably unlike paint? unheard of. Anti aliasing would ruin it. Get rid of that hideous grill thing on the handle, maybe tone down the colours erm, a lot there. Its awesome. Elk. Your dumb. Not all jpegs lose quality

Anti Aliasing can be done also with paint...
He tried to do that with a shadow effect.

Tell me once more that not every JPG loses quality and ill throw pixels at you.

Every JPG/JPEG Ive seen loses quality.

ok. Here you go.

*throws pixels up elks rear*

Erm, lol?

The only reason it lost quality i think its because it shrunk while being uploaded on photobucket.. i look at my original and its not screwed up.. im gonna play with the handle and err.. do something

Red, you're wrong.

I've circled on the jpg where jpg artifacts have appeared, and there are some that I haven't even circled that do that too. Jpg screws up image quality, and should only be used if you're really that picky about images loading fast. They are horrid when trying to set transparencies, layers, and anything else, and should be avoided if at all possible. They cause artifacts to dither details of your image, and can sometimes distort things as well.

Antialiasing wouldn't ruin the image originally created, it would simply blend edges to the midtones of two colors. (black and white forms a gray edge, etc) It really wouldn't be a bad choice to use here.

Yea, there's always quality loss with JPEG. The only differences are "Visible" and "Non-Visible" quality effects.

Zero.. Not very often is a jpeg used with transparency's. PNGs or Gifs or such are the usual graphics for this. When saving a graphic as a jpeg, try saving it using photoshop, set the quality to 12 (as i do) and there is no quality loss at all, only when you try to recolour large areas using a fill can or some other similar colour selector.
For the purpose of presenting a graphic in a forum, transperency is not essential, and the image that is viewable to the user is not significant enough to say "ohmygod its rubbish look at the quality". Upon maximum scrutinisation, where i have zoomed in to the max on this graphic in its jpeg format, i can only just see SLIGHTLY lighter pixels of colours.
So the quality may be reduced to a small extent, but by no means is it drastic enough to have a serious impact, or even a small impact, on a graphic.

I always set quality to Maximum...but sometimes, if the pic has less colors, PNG is better =o
jpg is using the full palette and thats like 1 mil cols or so

That makes sense, especially since JPEG doesn't support transparencies.
That makes sense, especially since they support transparency.
Incorrect. There's no *VISIBLE* quality loss.
Make up your mind, please.

hey stephen
do you think im cute?

What's wrong with you, exactly?

Well from my post about my graphic to fighting o.o

No one is fighting.