111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first official version of FLIF has not been released yet, and currently they are discussing releasing it under Apache 2 or MPL (Mozilla Public License).
Please Not MPL. Apache 2, so most company could understand, MPL they will have to spend a lot more time evaluating it. And I dont know of any popular project that uses MPL apart from Mozilla Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the compliment about FLIF's progressive decoding! (FLIF author speaking here) However, truncated FLIF files will (probably) never achieve the same quality/size ratio as dedicated lossy methods that can produce a completely different file for each quality setting. So at the moment I still see an important use case for lossy methods. However, in the future, I can imagine that people will start to demand/expe…
As a fun side project I was thinking of writing a clean room FLIF en/decoder, but I can't seem to find any paper or real explanation of the mechanics. Are those coming, or did I just miss those?
Writing out the detailed spec is going to take some effort.
you can't pronounce BPG like GIF, so I can't see a future for it.
How does this compare to FLIF? The responsive features of FLIF seem fantastic. http://flif.info/
Encoding those 369 PNG files to a LOSSLESS BPG animation (using bpgenc 0.9.6 with options -lossless -a) produces a .bpg file of about 50MB.
Encoding them to APNG (using apngasm 2.7) results in a 57MB animated PNG file.
The corresponding progressive FLIF animation is 20 MB.
Obviously it is not a good idea to losslessly encode lossy images/movies, as a lot of bytes are wasted on encoding compression artifacts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish GIFs had that option as well, actually They do, in Firefox! http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_:_Tips_:_Animated_Images (I know this is really late, but HN has been really aggressive about "submitting too fast" lately, and a half hour's wait didn't convince it to let me try again.)
Sorry, I guess I'm missing it? Can you point it out to me? I see only play once, play always, and never play
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first official version of FLIF has not been released yet, and currently they are discussing releasing it under Apache 2 or MPL (Mozilla Public License).
Please Not MPL. Apache 2, so most company could understand, MPL they will have to spend a lot more time evaluating it. And I dont know of any popular project that uses MPL apart from Mozilla Firefox.
Eigen (perhaps not "popular" unless you're interested in doing linear algebra with C++.. :-/ )?
Surely there are others as well..
If you want a weak copyleft license, IMHO MPL-2.0 is about the best available at the moment, and relatively easy to follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FLIF is encumbered by GPL which means it's not going to make it into any digital cameras.
The first official version of FLIF has not been released yet, and currently they are discussing releasing it under Apache 2 or MPL (Mozilla Public License).
It says "Spot the differences? :) There’s none." Really? The BPG is WAY worse, IMHO. It's immediately apparent. I noticed it with my eyes before I parsed the text.
Are you the same guy from the article comments? Granted, the Author should have been clearer about it, but BPG's is not mean to replace MP4 even though he juxtaposed them, it's about BPG's potential replacement for GIF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is entirely fair. The full encoding of FLIF is lossless, yes, but it has VERY strong progressive decoding. You could just truncate the file at x% and get lossy encoding that way.
Thanks for the compliment about FLIF's progressive decoding! (FLIF author speaking here) However, truncated FLIF files will (probably) never achieve the same quality/size ratio as dedicated lossy methods that can produce a completely different file for each quality setting. So at the moment I still see an important use case for lossy methods. However, in the future, I can imagine that people will start to demand/expe…