121–130 of 254 posts
In terms of getting it into chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=539120 > Keep in mind that the author of the FLIF works on the new FUIF ( https://github.com/cloudinary/fuif ) which will be part of the JPEG XL. So, probably FLIF will be deprecated soon. And as far as JPEG XL is also based on Google PIX, there is a high probability that Google will support this new format in their Blink engine…
The section "Works on any kind of image" is really misleading, as it mentions JPEG as a lossy format (alongside JPEG 2000) then says "FLIF beats anything else in all categories." It really needs a giant caveat saying "lossless". I mean, that's still great and impressive, but it clearly doesn't erase the need for a user to switch formats as a lossless format is still not suitable for end users a lot of the time. (It d…
FLIF relies on progressive loading instead of lossy compression, and still beats BPG and WebP except on the very low end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF? (Speaking as someone who's seen several open, licensing-unencumbered image/video/audio formats fail to get traction with a majority of browsers).
This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
Always cool to see new visual compression libraries hit the scene. That said I think the hardest part isn't the math of it, but the adoption of it. Likely the format with the best chance of overthrowing the jpg/gif/png incumbents is AVIF. Since it's based on AV1, you'd get hardware acceleration for decoding/encoding once it starts becoming a standard, and browser support will be trivial to add once AV1 has wide suppo…
Is AVIF lossless like FLIF?
I wonder how it compares with simply LZMA'ing (i.e. 7zip) a BMP. In my experience that has always been significantly smaller than PNG (which is itself a low bar --- deflate/zlib is a simple LZ+Huffman variant which is nowhere near the top of general-purpose lossless compression algorithms.) Along the same lines, I suspect BMP+LZMA would likely be beaten by BMP+PPM or BMP+PAQ, the current extreme in general-purpose co…
Do you have any examples of zipped bmp's compared to png. Seem strange if that was indeed better.
Not very surprising imho. PNG was never a strong compression format to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well I don't think so, but I don't quite see the point unless you are thinking of using it as a way to archive jpeg's, but in that case there are programs specifically for that, like PackJPG, Lepton etc.
How is it possible to have one-way only lossless compression?
The same thing can be done with image data. For something like jpeg you can keep the coefficients but store them in a more compact form.
For what it's worth JPEG XL claims that it's 'reversible', but I'm not sure if that means you get your original jpeg back, byte for byte, or you get an equivalent jpeg back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it have the feature where the file can be truncated to any size to form its own thumbnail? That would be an incredibly useful feature in so many applications.
Surely not any size. It'd have to be squares or something for that to make any sense, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?