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

161–170 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#161

Post by ralferoo »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #85
Aardwolf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exif can also cause confusion for how to render the image: should its rotation be applied or not? Old decoders and new decoders now could render an image with exif rotation differently since it's an optional chunk that can be ignored, and even for new decoders, the spec lists no decoder recommendations for how to use the exif rotation It does say "It is recommended that unless a decoder has independent knowledge of t…

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.

Re: A new PNG spec

#162

Post by 0points »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
michaelmior wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

> 5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them?

That's not how it works.

The server declares what versions of media it has, and the client requests a supported media format. The same trick have been used for audio and video for ages too.

Example:

Re: A new PNG spec

#163

Post by mlok »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
michaelmior wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

Maybe they offer alternatives to webp for those 5% ?

See CSS image-set : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/image/image...

Re: A new PNG spec

#164

Post by 0points »

jokoon wrote: post #105
albert_e wrote: post #5

So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :) Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

both GIF and PNG use zipping for compressing data, so APNG are not much better than GIF

Remember when we unwillingly trained the generative AI:s of our time with an endless torrent of factoids?

Re: A new PNG spec

#165

Post by Geezus_42 »

michaelmior wrote: post #147
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.

> 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.

Great, so I can download it, but then I have to convert it to a different format before half my apps will be able to use it.

Re: A new PNG spec

#166

Post by joking »

mavhc wrote: post #108
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.

Because your non-smartphone camera doesn't have enough ram/speed to do that I assume (when in burst mode) If a smartphone camera is doing it, then bad camera app!

the main reason is probably that the chip is already outputting the image in a lossy format, and if you reorder the pixels you must reencode the image which means degrading the image, so it's much better to just change the exif orientation.

Re: A new PNG spec

#167

Post by vorgol »

bmacho wrote: post #50
albert_e wrote: post #5

So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :) Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

> Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. SVG is just html5, it has full support for CSS, javascript with buttons, web workers, arbitrary fetch requests, and so on (obviously not supported by image viewers or allowed by browsers).

It nearly got raw socket support back in the day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381755

Re: A new PNG spec

#168

Post by pchangr »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
michaelmior wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

I can tell you, I have personally worked with a global corporation and we estimated that for one of their websites, supporting the 3% that we exclude by using “modern standards” would be more costly than the amount of revenue they get from them. So in that case, it was a rational decision. And up to the 10% cut, management just didn’t want to do the extra investment. So if something falls below that 10% threshold, they just don’t care to get it fixed.

Re: A new PNG spec

#169

Post by vbezhenar »

0points wrote: post #162
dotancohen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

> 5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? That's not how it works. The server declares what versions of media it has, and the client requests a supported media format. The same trick have been used for audio and video for ages too. Example:

This problem was solved by HTTP since forever. Client sends `Accept` header with supported formats and server selects the necessary content with corresponding `Content-Type` header. You don't need any HTML tags for it.

Re: A new PNG spec

#170

Post by ksec »

It is just a spec on something widely implemented already.

Assuming Next gen PNG will still require new decoder. They could just call it PNG2.

JPEG-XL already provides everything most people asked for a lossless codec. If there are any problems it is its encoding and decoding speed and resources.

Current champion of Lossless image codec is HALIC. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38990568

Post reply on HN