ok, ping files...... what are they? anything ending in .PNG (or .png or .Png or .pNg or......) yes this is a new image format (that has become my personal defacto standard for images). lets look at them in comparison to other images. in comparison to a jpeg: compression on a jpeg can be and usaly is better, but a ping file (they are called ping by proper proninciation in the set standard, not 'dot-pee-en-gee') can have an extremly great compression factor depending on what its saving. ok, now in comparison to a bitmap (.bmp or any other standard image file that saves raw image data on a one pixel one byte basis) compression is wonderful! for an example of the compression factor that ping files are capable of look at the attached file...... it contains every posible color in a scale of 16 MILLION colors (hint, in order to view this file properly youll have to turn your moniter resolution back up to its 24 or 32 bit settings) impressive when you look at it (more impressive if your webbrowser actualy opens the file whitout crashing, use a real photo editing program, i happen to know that The GIMP reads and displays it just fine). now im gonna have you do a little experiment. resave the file as a bitmap file (.bmp should work)now after it gets done saving (which can be QUITE a time depending on processing power) look at the file size? in ping file format its only 113K....... in bitmap? (should i say or leave it up to you to test on your own?) its quite impressive when you look at the compression.

ok, enuf of compression. just about every other image file (except bitmaps) use some form of compression or another. data quality. compared to a jpeg, its ALOT better, even on minimum compression and max compression in the jpegs favor. the format is built upon a standard for compression of 'lossless image compression' meaning that as you compress the file if looks the same. jpegs suffer here, sometimes badly. pings dont. slap them to max compression and all you do is show down the speed that you work with the files after there saved, the image is the exact same. lossless image compression. ok lets look at a bitmap. i cant say that ping has anything over bitmaps when it comes to data quality, unless you choose to save the bitmap in some kind of limeted quality (ex. 256 color) mode. ok, gif's are a popular standard nowadays..... ill compare them. gifs have excelent compression! theres not denying it. but they are limeted to only 256 colors (255 if its an animated gif or you specify an 'blank' color). so these have little use other than simply making your porn sites more...... interactive! sence they are only lemeted to there 256 colors they gave nothing for keeping photo images (unless you use a mapped pallet and take a photo of your thumb with a macro lense), so good compression but less of a standard for true color images.

ok finaly support. its currently still a productive standard meaning that it keeps progressing and getting better (usialy, but like anything thats 'progressive' it CAN get worse with alot of tampering). what do you say? your webbrowser wont view that 113K file i attached? thats cause its not ment for your webbrowser. this file is massive and needs a program that exists to look at photos and other high quality images. my webbrowser crashed everytime i tried to view it. but your webbrowser (assuming your not stuck with an un-upgraded crap OS from 1995) will view ping files. it will, belive it or not. this one is just alittle more that it will probably handle. it has browser support from all major browsers now-a-days, and is quickly becomming an internet suported standard.

so in closing if your looking for a file to save your photo album in and want every last color preserved but dont have the space available for 5 meg bitmap files, id 100% recomend using ping as the image format