Compared to the other version, this one has 1/4th the pixels (less if you don't count the white border) but over 40 times the filesize. That's insane.

iridescent_slime said:

Compared to the other version, this one has 1/4th the pixels (less if you don't count the white border) but over 40 times the filesize. That's insane.

It's probably encoded with 32-bit per channel color. Massively inflates the filesize for no practical reason in this application. It's actually kinda trollish.

Xcalibur255 said:

It's probably encoded with 32-bit per channel color. Massively inflates the filesize for no practical reason in this application. It's actually kinda trollish.

I thought maybe some pixels would have opacity and show a hidden feature when opened against a dark background, but it does not appear to be the case.

Xcalibur255 said:

It's probably encoded with 32-bit per channel color. Massively inflates the filesize for no practical reason in this application. It's actually kinda trollish.

Nope, just 8 bits per channel. No need to suspect the artist of trolling.

The image data is actually a reasonable 554 KiB. The other 23.4 MiB are for 427701 uncompressed photoshop:DocumentAncestors metadata items, which are entirely useless for anything published on the Internet. Thanks, Trollshop.

Котенок said:

I thought maybe some pixels would have opacity and show a hidden feature when opened against a dark background, but it does not appear to be the case.

That’s nonsense. This is a JPEG. It can’t have transparency. You’re thinking of PNGs. Also, opacity ≠ transparency.