Building a New Image Format
richardwalshlabs.blogspot.co.uk
Building a New Image Format
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Building a New Image Format
#2This sounds almost like the Opus of images - a format that tries to combine all the others into one.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#3CSS+JS with a bit of PHP on the server can generate/cache appropriate image sizes for each device from larger source files, using current image formats.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#4I don't see what a new format would bring to this problem, in the end you only want to send one image to each visitor, so you probably want a server side program that can transform one big image into various smaller size images. You don't actually want to be shifting all the various sizes around as a bundle.
(And WebP's real killer feature is lossy-photo + alpha at the same time, that's where there's a real gap in the market at the moment, in between PNG and JPEG.)
Re: Building a New Image Format
#5I'm not sure about the responsive image format thing. The problem is : the restrictions of mobile today (both in term of dpi and in term of connection speed) are likely to change very quickly. This means we'll need to re-encode images as mobile devices change.
A server-side solution where you store the full resolution image only and then use a cache for lower resolution seems much more flexible.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#6I don't see what a new format would bring to this problem, in the end you only want to send one image to each visitor, so you probably want a server side program that can transform one big image into various smaller size images. You don't actually want to be shifting all the various sizes around as a bundle. (And WebP's real killer feature is lossy-photo + alpha at the same time, that's where there's a real gap in th…
I'm enthusiastic about animation support. It's mind-boggling that we are still using an image format from 80s with crappy compression and limitation to 256 colors.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#7It's sad that Mozilla has not included WEBP. I cannot understand why since it seems to be a wonderful format.
Maybe they are waiting for all the promised features to deliver. So far I haven't seen working animations or lossy + alpha in Chrome so they probably aren't ready yet.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#8This is really one of the worst articles I've seen submitted here lately. I'm truly surprised that it is currently ranked up so high.
The presentation of the article is atrocious. The font alone renders extremely poorly in Firefox. It is just plain hard to read. Please just use a common font that will render well basically anywhere.
The inline "$3.99 ThanksGiving Offer" ad links peppered throughout the article are distracting, too. They really take focus away from the article itself (unless, of course, that is exactly what they were intended to do).
Then it has one part that goes, "It’s the WebP Image Format (see https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/) as shown here", with an image of the WebP logo that follows. The WebP logo image is a PNG, however! With a lead-in like that, I was sure it was going to be a WebP image demonstrating some of the format's benefits.
The various inline URLs that aren't hyperlinks are very annoying, too. They should obviously have been actual links.
Seeing stuff like "Microsfot" only makes the horrible article look even worse.
While I'm not expecting perfection, nearly everything about this article is sub-par. It's not what I wish to see when I come to HN.
When it comes to information, the Wikipedia article is so much better, yet it's still quite concise, too. For anyone interested, it is at:
Re: Building a New Image Format
#9WebP is not a hybrid of GIF or JPEG or PNG. It's a subset of the VP8 video codec, which, if anything, is more similar to H.264.
Re: Building a New Image Format
#10This is really one of the worst articles I've seen submitted here lately. I'm truly surprised that it is currently ranked up so high. The presentation of the article is atrocious. The font alone renders extremely poorly in Firefox. It is just plain hard to read. Please just use a common font that will render well basically anywhere. The inline "$3.99 ThanksGiving Offer" ad links peppered throughout the article are di…
"Then it has one part that goes, 'It’s the WebP Image Format (see https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/) as shown here', with an image of the WebP logo that follows. The WebP logo image is a PNG, however!" <-- LOL!