101–110 of 111 posts
What happened to JPEG 2000? It supports lossless too, but never seen it implemented on browsers.
It seems patents killed off the format for widespread acceptance. Maybe we'll actually get to use it in 2020 (when the patents will have expired).
What happened to JPEG 2000? It supports lossless too, but never seen it implemented on browsers.
The image quality improvements with JPEG2000 were mathematical but not really perceptual, see http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~jakulin/jpeg/artifacts.htm
The output quality is also codec dependent, and the one used in those tests has been shown to be towards the back of the pack in a 2005 shoot-out[1].
There is also no comparison between lossless JPEG2000 and PNG on a photograph.
[1] http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/jpeg2000_codecs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is still against it. Makes me kinda angry, actually. They killed MNG/JNG, because it added like 100kB to the installer and because we should just use Flash instead (seriously). It's now a decade later and we still don't have a lossy RGBA format. If quantized PNG8s aren't good enough, you can only use gigantic PNG32 files, which are over 5 times larger than JNG or WebP files. I've seen websites which were over…
Actually this is a non-issue. You could always implement comma separated image fallbacks[1]: background-image: image("wavy.svg", 'wavy.png' , "wavy.gif"); and so on... It seems that Google lowered emphasis on the project, or is still working on it behind-the-scenes. I'd much prefer to have 'less of images' moving over the web (without cutting back on visuals, you know) and save precious bandwidth. [1] http://dev.w3.o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is still against it. Makes me kinda angry, actually. They killed MNG/JNG, because it added like 100kB to the installer and because we should just use Flash instead (seriously). It's now a decade later and we still don't have a lossy RGBA format. If quantized PNG8s aren't good enough, you can only use gigantic PNG32 files, which are over 5 times larger than JNG or WebP files. I've seen websites which were over…
We do have lossy RGBA that works in all browsers since IE7 (and degrades well in IE4+): http://pngquant.org http://tinypng.org And while it's not as good as WebP, it's 20% of the filesize you get from Photoshop. http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/
Larger photo-based images will always look terrible, no matter which kind of dithering is used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do have lossy RGBA that works in all browsers since IE7 (and degrades well in IE4+): http://pngquant.org http://tinypng.org And while it's not as good as WebP, it's 20% of the filesize you get from Photoshop. http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/
256 colors (well, 256 RGBA tuples ) aren't always enough. Just look at the kind of images used by those heavy parallax websites. Larger photo-based images will always look terrible, no matter which kind of dithering is used.
I've got a pretty large collection of PNGs to test quantisation on and 68% of them end up converted in great quality, 89% are within acceptable range. It's about double of what you can get with Fireworks.
And for images that can't absolutely fit in 256-colors there's a hack for lossy true-color PNGs that can reduce size by 20-40%: https://github.com/pornel/mediancut-posterizer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually this is a non-issue. You could always implement comma separated image fallbacks[1]: background-image: image("wavy.svg", 'wavy.png' , "wavy.gif"); and so on... It seems that Google lowered emphasis on the project, or is still working on it behind-the-scenes. I'd much prefer to have 'less of images' moving over the web (without cutting back on visuals, you know) and save precious bandwidth. [1] http://dev.w3.o…
That only works for background images. Plus, the UA will send a request for the webp image even if it can't read the format. It needs the mime type to figure that out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, in a Retina world, it is often better to use a low quality JPEG at high res, than a high quality PNG at low res.
Well, besides the fact that we don't actually live in a "Retina world", the use of JPEG, even on high quality settings, for an artificial (= not taken from a camera) image pretty much precludes the ability to produce derivative works from it without a much more serious loss of quality. That's not to mention that there are some things which high resolutions cannot make up for, like color bleeding and other pretty seri…
It is very rare that a website has only perfect vector line art in its images. PNG sucks at compressing non-trivial gradients for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true for the majority of animations, but .gifs have come to serve a niche for short video content sans audio that they uniquely fulfill on the web. If APNG or MNG or whatever could replace huge animated .gifs for things like r/cinemagraphs I'd be thrilled.
Having seen animated gifs, I can assure you that mngs (pronounced as mings) would be likewise huge. It's better to just have a 1-line JS script do this, and a standard for sandboxing nonthreatening JS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, besides the fact that we don't actually live in a "Retina world", the use of JPEG, even on high quality settings, for an artificial (= not taken from a camera) image pretty much precludes the ability to produce derivative works from it without a much more serious loss of quality. That's not to mention that there are some things which high resolutions cannot make up for, like color bleeding and other pretty seri…
The point is that at high DPI, the "serious fuzzing" is much less noticeable for a variety of images. A retina screen has 4x the amount of pixels. Which means the 2x2 undersampled color errors are probably below our perception threshold. Especially if you pre-blur your high res image to a small degree, acting like an anti-aliasing filter when you scale it down by a factor of e.g. 1.5. For mobile, where users will be…
Also, palette images should get some love too. A high-res dithered GIF or 8-bit PNG might meet your needs (looks good on retina displays at normal zoom, stays crisp when zoomed in, smallish file size) better than the other options.