only supports PNG files?

[JosephSeraph]

JPGs really look unprofessional.

 

[therpgfanatic]

It drives me crazy when a photographer or artist sends me files in JPG because "the file size is smaller". As if that was the most important consideration. Images these days need to be able to have their sizes adjusted without artifacts, which JPG is incapable of. 

JPG is the worst compression type for images these days. There is no way to avoid artifacts because that is what it does -- it's a lossy compression. It's a step down format meant for a digital world that no longer exists. JPG hasn't been relevant since the days of dial up.

Nobody uses JPG professionally anymore, even for web development (which is what it once was popular for). As websites now have to be responsive PNG has become the standard. Given that the mobile export for MV is HTML5 and load in a version of Chrome...there's no reason to ever use JPG. You're guaranteed to end up with a large number of players having issues with their devices trying to play your game if you use JPG. 

 

[Heartbreak61]

Interesting discussion.

Based on OP's question, he wanted to use jpg files for title screen and battlebacks.

Using irfanview batch conversion, I converted the whole default battlebacks1 images from png to jpg. The result size are down to roughly 7MB from 60MB while mantaining what I dare to say 'generally acceptable image quality'. 53MB is a great difference especially on mobile apps. So, in this case, I prefer JPG images.

I mean, come on, who's gonna forget their battle for awhile, scrutinize the battleback and yell, "I found an artifact on the background image!"

It's the same with title screen. It means to be skipped most of the time. People just take a quick glance, get the 'bigger picture' of what the creator intend to show, and simply choose a new game or to load saved one. It's the concept that really matters, not wether it has artifacts or not. But, in this case, since it only involve a single image, the size difference is not great and it can be simply ignored wether it's JPG or PNG.

Anyway...

It's a limitation of the engine and there's still workaround for that limitation. I guess I'll just try to find best PNG compressor around the web to keep the output of my project as small as possible while mantaining the quality to generally acceptable.

 

[erikmidnatt]

Nobody uses JPG professionally anymore, even for web development (which is what it once was popular for).

This is completely untrue.  JPG and GIF still are widely used for good reason...

It drives me crazy when a photographer or artist sends me files in JPG because "the file size is smaller". As if that was the most important consideration. Images these days need to be able to have their sizes adjusted without artifacts, which JPG is incapable of.

when you give a client a few hundred photos, yes size does matter. And most aren't going to be modifying them...they might print them.

The real world is very different that many of you imagine. Ideals are nice and all, but in practice you will find most people don't care about the stuff you mention. I totally agree for people editing files you should stick with the source asset that is uncompressed and has layers...but saying jpg aren't professional is going off the deep end.

 

[Tsukihime]

It drives me crazy when a photographer or artist sends me files in JPG because "the file size is smaller". As if that was the most important consideration. Images these days need to be able to have their sizes adjusted without artifacts, which JPG is incapable of. 


JPG is the worst compression type for images these days. There is no way to avoid artifacts because that is what it does -- it's a lossy compression. It's a step down format meant for a digital world that no longer exists. JPG hasn't been relevant since the days of dial up.

If someone's sending you photos for you to edit, of course they should be sending you lossless, raw files. Even PNG is a terrible option for that matter since it loses a lot of other information.


There is a difference between sending files for the purpose of editing, and sending files for the purpose of viewing.


When a game has been finalized and published, the only people that will be editing it are the people that will be playing the game, and there should be no good reason why they should be doing that.


For the average person, they're not going to be able to tell a difference between a lightly-compressed JPG image and a PNG unless you're really trying to squeeze your file sizes. Someone that works with artwork professionally may be able to spot all these artifacts in plain sight, but most people likely don't have that kind of trained eye.

Nobody uses JPG professionally anymore, even for web development (which is what it once was popular for). As websites now have to be responsive PNG has become the standard. Given that the mobile export for MV is HTML5 and load in a version of Chrome...there's no reason to ever use JPG. You're guaranteed to end up with a large number of players having issues with their devices trying to play your game if you use JPG.

What's wrong with using JPG in a responsive website? PNG and JPG are both raster formats.

 

[therpgfanatic]

This is completely untrue.  JPG and GIF still are widely used for good reason...

when you give a client a few hundred photos, yes size does matter. And most aren't going to be modifying them...they might print them.

The real world is very different that many of you imagine. Ideals are nice and all, but in practice you will find most people don't care about the stuff you mention. I totally agree for people editing files you should stick with the source asset that is uncompressed and has layers...but saying jpg aren't professional is going off the deep end.

Who is your client? o.0

No professional ad agency wants a compressed format like JPG files. No one uses enormous 3648 x 2736 pixel sized images without any modifications at all, you need to alter the image for inclusion in the video / brochure / book / whatever it is you are trying to use the photo for. JPG causes you to lose substantial amounts of data needed to load it into photoshop / illustrator / after effects, etc. In a workflow JPG was only ever intended to be an output format not an input format. 

Giving your client JPG as a photographer is almost as bad as a cinematographer giving the client a H.264 video file instead of an uncompressed format. 

JPG won't even load natively inside a mobile app for iOS like a PNG will. Meaning JPG causes your game to run slower.

PS: Your game file size doesn't matter when the game doesn't run correctly. 

What's wrong with using JPG in a responsive website? PNG and JPG are both raster formats. 

JPGs with text or using "flat design" will end up with very obvious artifacts, which become even more noticeable when using a responsive design.  

As said before you can reduce the size of a png by using pngcrush. Xcode will do this anyway when you create the iOS app. https://tinypng.com/ is also popular.

Honestly, if you spend time on stack overflow reading about mobile apps and JPG you'll realize there is no reason to use JPG.