Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What’s the best lossless image format?

siipo.la

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#131

Post by npteljes »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #85
lajamerr wrote: post #22

JPEG XL is the standard to beat them all. Like how Opus became the definitive codec for lossy compression for the web. JPEG XL covers nearly every use case for images, even replacing GIFs with it's animation support. Existing JPEGs can also be re-encoded losslessly into JPEG XL format/data structure and get significant file size savings. This backwards compatiability is very important in transitioning to web to JPEG…

Yeah, but what is the file extension? If it is .jpx, maybe. Otherwise, no. (Only partially kidding, unfortunately. Outcomes sometimes hinge on trivial details.)

It's .jxl, apparently. The wiki says so and jpegxl.io's online converter also produces .jxl-s.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#132

Post by pmoriarty »

ronyclau wrote: post #113
zarzavat wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In vim wouldn’t you just remap everything so that the physical keys stay the same in normal mode, and only use an alternative layout in insert mode?

There's too much cognitive overhead if you do this. For example, to change a word we use `ciw`, which roughly means "Change Inner Word" as a mnemonic. There are quite a lot of similar keys with mnemonics, which would prolly make no sense if you keep the QWERTY keypresses on a Dvorak layout.

I find such mnemonics only useful for initially learning how vim works. After a while it's all just muscle memory and I don't even think about how to do stuff, I just do it.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#133

Post by pmoriarty »

thayne wrote: post #104
LeoPanthera wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very misleading. Some of those 9 "apps" include imagemagick, ffmpeg, exiftool, libvips, and Qt KImageFormats. These libraries power a vast amount of software. Support is also in beta for Firefox and Chrome.

So if you are on linux, practically every app that deals with images will work. On windows and mac, it's probably less likely.

"So if you are on linux, practically every app that deals with images will work."

Linux has way more than 9 apps that deal with images.

So if you are on linux, practically every app that deals with images will NOT work with JPEG XL.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#134

Post by npteljes »

emeril wrote: post #17

For web graphics, isn't a mix of PNG/JPEG good enough generally speaking? I'd imagine the benefits of changing to something more modern/efficient aren't worth the cost/time involved other than in esoteric situations given that most end users have high bandwidth connections and bandwidth costs typically aren't too significant?

I'd say if you want to go on with your day painlessly, they are solid choices. If the website has large traffic for static assets, webp could make sense - the files that would be otherwise jpegs could be half the size, so half bandwidth. I imagine that CDNs would do this for you though.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#135

Post by mkl »

mgdlbp wrote: post #39
heipei wrote: post #16

If your dataset allows it, I would look at pngquant for "lossy" compression of PNG images by means of color quantization: https://pngquant.org/ This works absolute wonders if you are talking about images with a limited amount of colors and without many gradients. I use it to compress screenshots of websites, which, if you think about it, are mostly large blobs of uniform colors with hard edges. I also use it every ti…

Still hoping for vector desktop screenshots, now that modern GUIs are all vector-based.* 11 years on, gtk-vector-screenshot still stands alone, though we do now have a handful tools for rendering webpages to SVGs. *Add this to Category:Articles_with_obsolete_information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector-based_graphical_user_in...

MacOSX has that for a while, years ago. Mostly I think it was misleading and aimed at print magazines.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#136

Post by mkl »

imagetic wrote: post #126
ollifi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in digital cinemas films are JPEG2000 sequences.

Huh?

Exactly what they said. Movies in cinemas with digital projectors are distributed as sequences of JPEG 2000 images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#137

Post by Beltalowda »

mariusor wrote: post #119
axiolite wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Itanium was better than AMD64, No, AMD64 is far superior, Itanium's benefits never materialized. Any BOTH offer backwards compatibility, anyhow. > DVORAK is better than QWERTY, Not by enough to matter except in extreme circumstances. I say this as a Dvorak typist. > I'm sure Esperanto is lightyears ahead of the monstrosity that is English. It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" En…

> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. I'm sure it's easy to say that when you are already an English speaker. I personally doubt it very much. Is there some data maybe that supports this point of view?

As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film.

The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#138

Post by Beltalowda »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #88
Beltalowda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without a doubt 5 years now JPEG XL will become like Opus and set the standard for next generation image formats. I wrote a little X11 screenshot tool last year; one of the reasons I wrote it is because I wanted to save images as WebP rather than PNG that most tools use, since it's quite a bit smaller. Not that I'm running out of disk space, but it just seemed nice; one of those "no, it's not really needed but it's…

You could make a similar case for audio. GP described Opus as "the definitive codec for lossy compression", which made me do a bit of a double take. Opus is absolutely the technically superior audio format, but when you want to give users a file you'll be sure they can play, you give them an MP3. I expect JPEG and PNG to become for images what MP3 is today. And I expect H.264 to become that for video. These formats a…

> You could make a similar case for audio

It wasn't really my intention to "make a case"; just an observation/lament/complaint.

Re: What’s the best lossless image format?

#140

Post by mariusor »

Beltalowda wrote: post #137
mariusor wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. I'm sure it's easy to say that when you are already an English speaker. I personally doubt it very much. Is there some data maybe that supports this point of view?

As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film. The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.

I see, that makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't call the language itself being "easier" but rather the process of learning it. However I don't think parent meant it like that.
Post reply on HN