Option to screenshot as jpg.

[Xaiier]

PNGs are not significantly larger than JPG. Yeah, right to some extend.

Try multiplying both to daily internet 'users'. Each time the particular PNGs and JPGs views. I will skipped the rest of my point. Below are my example of calculation. Let say the difference between JPG and PNG are about 10k. (Extreme low, normally about 100k).

Daily internet user = 2,802,478,934 people (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)

and 10kbytes per picture. = 20,802,487,934kbytes of difference.

19 Gigabytes per picture per day. How many PNG does this forum have? How many times each picture view per day?

For those who don't care about the download and upload bandwidth, because they are the world 30% 'much richer' people, please consider the other 70% less fortunate people that do not have broadband internet like you.

This is a [Suggestion Section] of the forum. You don't have the privileges to act on behalf the developer on how they are going to spend their time on development. Cut the talk about how you concern about SQUAD spend their times to develop the next release. Your are as selfish as want the developer to deliver faster on the game updates so you can enjoy it.

And skip on telling on how to convert PNG to JPG. I have knowledge on how to do a lost-less Gif animation.

So is your issue with the screenshots or with the uploading mechanisms? Most of the images that are shared online go through some image service like imgur which automatically converts most images that would be shared here to a lossy format like JPG anyways. I fail to see how offering the ability to save screenshots as JPG in the first place changes that at all.

[Sirine]

So is your issue with the screenshots or with the uploading mechanisms? Most of the images that are shared online go through some image service like imgur which automatically converts most images that would be shared here to a lossy format like JPG anyways. I fail to see how offering the ability to save screenshots as JPG in the first place changes that at all.

No. imgur will not auto convert your upload file unless you manually select it to convert to JPG. And most of the imgur album here are PNGs.

If just in-case anyone wandering what I'm concerning here. I mind that, the PNG file size too large compare with JPG. And please respect the less fortunate of 70% in the world that do not have broadband internet speed.

[John FX]

Can`t see the fuss myself. I hate jpegs due to the artifacts.

I`d support a lossless format that was smaller though.

[Kasuha]

I`d support a lossless format that was smaller though.

You can't achieve significant compression without losing quality. But there are image formats which don't leave as bad artifacts as jpeg and still achieve significant compression. For instance jpeg2000.

[Xaiier]

No. imgur will not auto convert your upload file unless you manually select it to convert to JPG. And most of the imgur album here are PNGs.

If just in-case anyone wandering what I'm concerning here. I mind that, the PNG file size too large compare with JPG. And please respect the less fortunate of 70% in the world that do not have broadband internet speed.

Imgur disagrees: http://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/201424706-How-does-Imgur-compress-my-images-

A common screenshot at 1080p sits between 1-3mb

I still fail to see how internet speed has anything to do with what format the screenshots come out as. Perhaps your suggestion should be for a community wide push to use lower quality images so the "70%" can see them too?

[Red Iron Crown]

Try multiplying both to daily internet 'users'. Each time the particular PNGs and JPGs views. I will skipped the rest of my point. Below are my example of calculation. Let say the difference between JPG and PNG are about 10k. (Extreme low, normally about 100k).

Daily internet user = 2,802,478,934 people (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)

and 10kbytes per picture. = 20,802,487,934kbytes of difference.

19 Gigabytes per picture per day. How many PNG does this forum have? How many times each picture view per day?

If you're going to use worldwide stats, at least put them in context. Total Internet bandwidth usage is a bit over 60PB/month in 2014 (source), or about 2PB/day. The difference between jpg and png for your example picture, if viewed by every Internet user, would account for about 0.00001% of total bandwidth used that day.

[Kasuha]

If you're going to use worldwide stats, at least put them in context. Total Internet bandwidth usage is a bit over 60PB/month in 2014 (source), or about 2PB/day. The difference between jpg and png for your example picture, if viewed by every Internet user, would account for about 0.00001% of total bandwidth used that day.

... while more than 50% of internet traffic is spam.

[Sirine]

Seems that you guys can't comprehend there are other part of the world people are still using modem dail up running at 360kbytes for internet speed.

Or perhaps you don't even know what a modem is.

[Red Iron Crown]

No, I comprehend. I started on the Internet with 1200bps dialup.

It just seems unlikely to me that someone who can download a ~500MB digital-distribution-only game is going to balk at the difference between .png and .jpg. Or that the percentage of KSP users who care about the image size difference is anything but vanishingly small.

[Superfluous J]

Not the first time I've been in a group so small that the overwhelming majority would rather do things the easy way with no appreciable benefit because they don't see how massive the downside is for me.

I would take a random guess that most all of the images on this forum would show no appreciable degradation by cutting their file size to about 15% (what my tests show cutting png to jpg on default settings would do). The only ones that really "need" to be in png are the art shots. "Hey look at my ship" and most every single picture in the "what I did today" thread are glance-and-move-on shots at best.

But that's cool. I'll just keep avoiding those threads and quickly closing the occasional thread I stumble in with acres of whitespace where I assume images may load some day. I'm way too small a demographic to be concerned about.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not the first time I've been in a group so small that the overwhelming majority would rather do things the easy way with no appreciable benefit because they don't see how massive the downside is for me.

Why is the downside so massive for you?

[Kasuha]

Seems that you guys can't comprehend there are other part of the world people are still using modem dail up running at 360kbytes for internet speed.

Or perhaps you don't even know what a modem is.

I comprehend. I don't disagree with your suggestion to add image storing in form of jpg as an alternative to current storing in high quality png format.

The thing I disagree with is that it's going to save the world. It will not save the world. It will help you to upload your images. Or rather, make that process slightly more comfortable as you'll not need to convert them manually which is the option now.

And last but not least, there's no way to make whole world respect your connection limits and start uploading images in reduced quality. Such request is selfish and completely unrealistic.

But there is still a way out. There are internet proxies that will download images for you and send them to you in reduced quality. I don't need to use them so I don't know any particular one but I'm quite sure they exist. Maybe there's a Google service for that, too.

[Superfluous J]

Why is the downside so massive for you?

Because I load the KSP forums in tabs, multiple tabs usually one for each thread on the "new posts" page that I've replied to. If someone has posted 30 2-meg PNG files that's 60 meg of data and a horrendously slowed connection for everything else while that's happening. Plus, if that happens enough times in a month, my cell provider will charge me extra money for using bandwidth.

Yes, I could completely change the way I've learned to use the Internet over the past decade (since I started using tabs, essentially. Though before that I frequently opened multiple windows). Yes, I could just suck it up and pay extra. No, you are by no means beholden to me to make my and all the other people in my situation easier. But massive, bandwidth-hogging images of someone's space ship that could be cut down in size about 1/6 to 1/8th with no appreciable degradation of quality DO make my browsing life a chore a lot of the time.

I've given up relying on the kindness of strangers, so don't worry. I tried a few things (Adblock blocking of pngs across the board was too much, there are too many png icons on this and other sites. I'm now looking into making my own chrome extension to block pngs and allow right-click whitelisting) and will - as I have done up until now - just suffer through.

[Kasuha]

I'm now looking into making my own chrome extension to block pngs and allow right-click whitelisting) and will - as I have done up until now - just suffer through.

For people with slow connections, there's also profile -> general settings -> thread display options -> show images

[Sirine]

goecogoogle.com

I will just place 1 link above. You search the keyword... Eco.

[Superfluous J]

For people with slow connections, there's also profile -> general settings -> thread display options -> show images

I'm actually giving that a try now but it's kind of like doing surgery with a machete. I don't want to block all images. I want to block large images. blocking all pngs within tags would block the vast majority of them, but I can't say that, I can only block everything or nothing. And I'd like the option to view those few images that I'd actually like to see.

EDIT: It's less than ideal but better than any other option I've found. I'll live with this for now until I find (or create) a better option.

Edited September 15, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[toadicus]

Alright dudes, dudettes, and otherwise dude-ish persons. You're all talking about a lot of things, and bytes, and artifacts, and saving the world. I don't know if this will save the world. But it will save bytes and cause artifacts for those of you who want those things, and allow you to, at the push of a button, produce this:

Instead of this:

For a bit of technical discussion: KSP's screenshot algorithms probably use Unity's built-in "TakeScreenshot" function. This function doesn't offer a lot of options: specifically, you get to specify the file path where you'd like Unity to spit out a png file. The end. It also allows you to produce high-quality screenshots, presumably by re-rendering the scene at a higher resolution just for the camera, but I don't think KSP actually exposes that to the user at all. So, that nice, canned function and KSP's algorithms can't (or at least won't) produce JPGs.

This sounded like an easy project, so I wrote a little mod that goes and steals the screenshot key and takes screenshots in jpg or png, depending on your choice in the settings window accessible by the ApplicationLauncher or Toolbar in the SpaceCenter scene.

http://ksp.hawkbats.com/SSM/SSM.zip

Currently released under the modified BSD license.

I'm not really formally releasing or developing this. But, it was a fun distraction from the MADNESS that has been work lately, and if this helps you out and is something that you love forever, I'll clean it up and release it on the Addon Releases forum.

Dear moderators: if you want to move this post elsewhere I'm fine with that, but please consult me first. As mentioned above, I'm not really committing to a release. I'll answer a PM quickly or can be found on IRC if that's a thing you want to do.

Edited September 15, 2014 by toadicus
Fixed the links. Added note about jpg quality. Updated screenshots.

[toadicus]

Apparently I am more of a masochist than I originally thought.

I've updated the SSM archive with a new version (same link above). I've integrated a new standalone jpeg library so that the jpeg quality can be set (it defaults to 99). I solved the clickthrough problem and added "other" format functionality by hold the modifier key while clicking your screenshot (e.g. Alt+F1). I might also have fixed the issue with the default screenshot key sneaking back sometimes.

At the space center, on average, a "quality 99" jpeg is about half the size of a lossless png.

Dear moderators: Sorry for the double post.

Edited September 15, 2014 by toadicus
Added letter to the moderators.

[Bilfr3d]

They look exactly the same... maybe its just my eyes...

[toadicus]

The jpg is pretty high quality (95), and the forum has zoomed it a little bit because the image is too big for the frame, which makes the detail harder to see. If you view it full size you can see some blocking, especially around text and high-contrast edges, like the detail around the nose of the Kerbal X boosters against the sky, but in general it's pretty good. It's also about 1/3 the size of the png.

[Wanderfound]

They look exactly the same... maybe its just my eyes...

Same here.

Png's are pretty, sure, but jpegs are perfectly adequate unless you plan on projecting it onto a six-foot screen.

[sumghai]

goecogoogle.com

I will just place 1 link above. You search the keyword... Eco.

Slight digression from the main topic, but I take issue with so-called "energy saving" websites such as Blackle and the aforementioned GoEcogoogle. Energy savings from not lighting up pixels generally applies to traditional CRT monitors more than the newer and more prevalvent LCDs (in LCDs, the white backlight is always on, even if you switch all the pixels to black - in fact, a black screen on an LCD uses more energy than a white screen, so LCD users of Blackle and GoEcogoogle are actually harming the environment more).

"Save the environment" is a nice gesture, Sirine, but you're being far too zealous about it by promoting these questionable tricks, particularly in trading image quality for questionable bandwidth/electricity savings. Instead of resorting to such "tricks", more substantial "saving the environment" should come from switching to LED home/office lighting, car pooling, taking public transport, refraining from using disposable cutlery.

[Wanderfound]

Apparently I am more of a masochist than I originally thought.

I've updated the SSM archive with a new version (same link above). I've integrated a new standalone jpeg library so that the jpeg quality can be set (it defaults to 99). I solved the clickthrough problem and added "other" format functionality by hold the modifier key while clicking your screenshot (e.g. Alt+F1). I might also have fixed the issue with the default screenshot key sneaking back sometimes.

At the space center, on average, a "quality 99" jpeg is about half the size of a lossless png.

Dear moderators: Sorry for the double post.

Thanks for the effort, but what I actually get from that download is an SSM folder that contains a Gamedata folder that contains another SSM folder that contains nothing. The source is there in the top level folder, but it looks like the compiled version is missing.

[Sirine]

Slight digression from the main topic, but I take issue with so-called "energy saving" websites such as Blackle and the aforementioned GoEcogoogle. Energy savings from not lighting up pixels generally applies to traditional CRT monitors more than the newer and more prevalvent LCDs (in LCDs, the white backlight is always on, even if you switch all the pixels to black - in fact, a black screen on an LCD uses more energy than a white screen, so LCD users of Blackle and GoEcogoogle are actually harming the environment more).

"Save the environment" is a nice gesture, Sirine, but you're being far too zealous about it by promoting these questionable tricks, particularly in trading image quality for questionable bandwidth/electricity savings. Instead of resorting to such "tricks", more substantial "saving the environment" should come from switching to LED home/office lighting, car pooling, taking public transport, refraining from using disposable cutlery.

You forget that there are 70% of the world are still using CRT monitor.

One simple question, your so-called smartphone, by turning the brightness higher means consuming more power or the other ways round? LED work the same. Black does save some degree of energy.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sirine

[Superfluous J]

One simple question, your so-called smartphone, by turning the brightness higher means consuming more power or the other ways round? LED work the same. Black does save some degree of energy.

Changing the brightness != pixels colored black.

At the same brightness levels, a fully black (not asleep, but on and lit but all black) screen will use the same electricity as a fully white screen. The black pixels just block your eyes from seeing that light.