PNG: doing very little with as much complexity as possible.
You’re going to be shocked when you find out how webp works.
A new PNG spec
141–150 of 622 posts
Re: A new PNG spec
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without the new HDR and color profile handling, PNG was still useful but significantly obsolete. Display hardware has progressed over a few decades, raising the bar for image files.
There is nothing in display hardware today that TIFF couldn't handle already. For example 16bit (integer) TIFF files 'with headroom', i.e. where some bits were used to represent data over 1.0 (HDR) was a common approach for VFX work in the 90's. 16bit float TIFF is also thing since 33 years. Adobe DNG is modeled after TIFF. High end offline renderers have traditionally been using TIFF (with mip-maps) to store texture…
>The format is so versatile, it is used everywhere.
Yeah, I love the fact that you can embed a PDF file inside a TIFF.
Re: A new PNG spec
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression many gifs these days are actually served as soundless videos, as those basically compress better. Can animated PNG beat av1 or whatever?
> many gifs these days are actually served as soundless videos That's not really true. Some websites lie to you by putting .gif in the address bar but then serving a file of a different type. File extensions are merely a convention and an address isn't a file name to begin with so the browser doesn't care about this attempt at end user deception one way or the other.
You said that's not really true and the described exactly how it's true, what did you mean?
Re: A new PNG spec
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you improve a compression algorithm and still produce a still valid decompression input? PNG is based on zip, there's certainly ways to improve zip without breaking backwards compatibility. That being said, they also can do dumb things however, right at the end of the sentence you quote they say: > we want to make sure we do it right. So there's hope.
That's what OptiPNG already does.
Doesn't OptiPNG just brute force various settings and pick the best result?
Re: A new PNG spec
#145What about implementations? libpng seems pretty dead, 1.7 has been in development forever but 1.6 is still considered the stable version. Is there a current "canonical" png C/C++ library?
[deleted]
Re: A new PNG spec
#146Not 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.
Re: A new PNG spec
#147Not 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.
> and the abysmal everyday use it gets
Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.
Re: A new PNG spec
#148> Officially supports Exif data Probably the best news here. While you already can write custom data into a header, having Exif is good. BTW: Does Exif have a magnetometer (rotation) and acceleration (gravity) field? I often wonder about why Google isn't saving this information in the images which the camera app saves. It could help so much with post-processing, like with leveling the horizon or creating panoramas.
Personally i wish people just used XMP. Exif is such a bizarre fotmat. Its essentially embedding a tiff image inside a png.
Re: A new PNG spec
#149Not 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.
I don't really think this is the case here. All major browsers already support the new spec for example. This isn't a case of oh we'll have support for it eventually, it's already there.
Re: A new PNG spec
#150Not 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.
> and the abysmal everyday use it gets Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.
My file manager can’t handle them but my browser can.
Edit: and good luck uploading the format to the majority of webforms that aren’t faang.