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

A new PNG spec

programmax.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#321

Post by cptcobalt »

It seems like this new PNG spec just cements what exists already, great! The best codecs are the ones that work on everything. PNG and JPEG work everywhere, reliably.

Try opening a HEIC or AV1 or something on a machine that doesn't natively support it down to the OS-level, and you're in for a bad time. This stuff needs to work everywhere—in every app, in the OS shell for quick-looking at files, in APIs, on Linux, etc. If a codec does not function at that level, it is not functional for wider use and should not be a default for any platform.

Re: A new PNG spec

#322

Post by poisonborz »

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #258
poisonborz wrote: post #146

Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.

> Look at poor webp What about it? "Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality levels" This literally saves houndred of thousand of cost, bandwith, electricity every month on the internet. In fact, I strongly belive that this is one of the greatest contributions from Google to society just like ZSTD from Facebook. https://developers.google.c…

Society wholeheartedly thanks Google for saving costs for Google

Re: A new PNG spec

#323

Post by dylan604 »

ralferoo wrote: post #161
DidYaWipe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid thing is that any device with an orientation sensor is still writing images the wrong way and then setting a flag, expecting every viewing application to rotate the image. The camera knows which way it's oriented, so it should just write the pixels out in the correct order. Write the upper-left pixel first. Then the next one. And so on. WTF.

One interesting thing about JPEG is that you can rotate an image with no quality loss. You don't need to convert each 8x8 square to pixels, rotate and convert back, instead you can transform them in the encoded form. So, rotating each 8x8 square is easy, and then rotating the image is just re-ordering the rotated squares.

Slight nitpicking, but you can rotate in 90° increments without loss.

Re: A new PNG spec

#324

Post by remram »

So what do we call it? PNG3? The spec is titled "Portable Network Graphics Specification (Third Edition)".

Surely they aren't releasing a new, incompatible version and expecting us to pretend it's the same format...?

> This updates the existing image/png Internet Media type

whyyyyyyy

Re: A new PNG spec

#325

Post by ziml77 »

gred wrote: post #198
369548684892826 wrote: post #196

A fun fact about PNG, the correct pronunciation is defined in the specification > PNG is pronounced “ping” See the end of Section 1 [0] 0: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png.pdf

That makes two image format names which I will refuse to pronounce correctly (the other being GIF [1]). [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/22/tech/web/pronounce-gif

The only logic I ever hear for using a hard G is because that's how Graphics is said. Yet I never hear people saying jay-feg.

Re: A new PNG spec

#326

Post by illiac786 »

dylan604 wrote: post #318
pmarreck wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JPEG XL is not a "variant", it is a completely new algorithm that is also fully backwards-compatible with every single JPEG already out there, of which there are probably billions at this point. It also has pretty much every feature desired in an image standard. It is future-proofed. You can losslessly re-compress a JPEG into a JPEG-XL file and gain space. It is a worthy successor (while also being vastly superior to…

> You can losslessly re-compress a JPEG into a JPEG-XL file and gain space. Is that gained space enough to account for the fact you now have 2 files? Sure, you can delete the original jpg on the local system, but are you going to purge your entire set of backups?

if you do not want to delete the original jpeg, there is no point in converting them to jpeg xl I would say.

Unless serving jxl and saving bandwidth, while increasing your total storage, is worth it to you.

Re: A new PNG spec

#327

Post by ziml77 »

mandmandam wrote: post #293
LocalH wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that language is fluid. However, when it comes to names, I think people should have enough respect to pronounce things how the creator (or owner, depending on the situation) of the name says it should be pronounced. Too often people will mispronounce someone's name as a sign of intentional disrespect (see Kamala Harris for a fairly recent prominent example) and I cannot get behind that. You see a similar disr…

If the creator insists on a weird pronunciation, because of an inside joke most won't ever get, then I feel no responsibility in humoring them. The G in gif is for graphics. Not 'giraffics'. And most people in the world have no idea what Jif even is, much less a particular catchphrase from an old ad campaign that barely even connects.

And the P in JPEG is for photographic, so you better be saying jay-feg if you want to rely on that logic.

Re: A new PNG spec

#328

Post by illiac786 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #315
pmarreck wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JPEG XL is not a "variant", it is a completely new algorithm that is also fully backwards-compatible with every single JPEG already out there, of which there are probably billions at this point. It also has pretty much every feature desired in an image standard. It is future-proofed. You can losslessly re-compress a JPEG into a JPEG-XL file and gain space. It is a worthy successor (while also being vastly superior to…

Is there any risk that if I open a JPEG-XL in something that knows what a JPEG is but not what a JPEG-XL is and then save it, it'll get lossy compressed? Backwards compatibility is awesome, but I know that if I save/upload/share/copy a PNG, it shouldn't change without explicit edits, right?

a sw that does not know what jpeg xl is, will not be able to open jxl files. How would it?

Not sure what the previous poster meant with “backward compatible” here. jxl is a different format. It can include every information a jpeg includes, which then maybe qualifies as “backward compatible” but it still is a different format.

Re: A new PNG spec

#329

Post by illiac786 »

sdenton4 wrote: post #320
illiac786 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to the new PNG, not to JPEG XL.

Looking at TFA, it's placing in the spec a few things that are already widely stacked onto the format (such as animation). This is a very sensible update, and backwards compatible with existing PNG.

Not sure expanding PNG capabilities is sensible, looking at the overall landscape of image formats.

Re: A new PNG spec

#330

Post by LocalH »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #295
LocalH wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said "jif" for almost 40 years, and I'm not stopping anytime soon. Hard-g is wrong , and those who use it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to. It's the tech equivalent to the shopping cart problem. What do you do when there is no incentive one way or the other? Do you do the right thing, or do you disrespect others?

pronounce the jraphics interchange format any way you want, everyone knows what you're talking about anyway -- try not to get so worked up. It's not the shopping cart problem, because no-one is measurably harmed by not choosing the same pronunciation as you.

i'll start using hard-g gif when you start saying "jfeg" ;)
Post reply on HN