Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

flif.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 254 posts

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#181

Post by stevespang »

jjcm wrote: post #47

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…

If the Big Boys are all supporting AVIF then that leads one to suspect it have some legal backdoors for eventual patenting, or worse, already covered by some obscure patent(s) ? It appears the legal background needs more discussion and revealing . . . unfortunately we live in an age where Big Tech looks to benefit themselves first and everyone else last.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#182

Post by amelius »

jjcm wrote: post #47

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…

> 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.

The hardest part is figuring out which patents they infringe, and how to circumvent them.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#183

Post by hrgiger »

jjcm wrote: post #47

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…

For the curious netflix has shared AVIF format images http://download.opencontent.netflix.com/?prefix=AV1/Chimera/...

Here are some supporting implementations: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/wiki#demuxers--play...

If you want to check how it looks like on supported browser: https://kagami.github.io/avif.js/

I was also digging around and as OP mentioned found it interesting topic.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#184

Post by jstummbillig »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #149
jstummbillig wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive mode is better than a loading spinner in the same way that PWAs are better than a loading spinner: By getting mostly usable content in as little time as possible to the user you decrease perceived wait, you decrease time to interactive and you increase perceived loading speed (even though time to full load might be the same or slightly increased).

Did you confuse terminology? Web progressive is sort of an antonym to graphics progressive.

How so? Progressive JPEGs load in multiple passes. The first pass trades fidelity for speed, successive passes add quality over time. Seems pretty much in line with what PWA is all about.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#185

Post by [deleted] »

jjcm wrote: post #47

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…

[deleted]

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#186

Post by forgottenpass »

thanatropism wrote: post #35
hug wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While weight is a factor in professional car racing, and while I've built a go-kart that is significantly lighter in weight than a professional racing car, it is not a particularly impressive achievement that I have managed to do so, and I wouldn't think to criticize a race team for the weight of their vehicle.

Go home, GPT-2, you're drunk.

underrated comment

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#187

Post by adev_ »

floatingatoll wrote: post #165
adev_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LGPL is incompatible with signed executables Do you have a source for that ?

HN seems to have discussed this back in 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4789784

It does not seem to do consensus to me, just speculations. And even if it would be a consensus, there is way to link statically with LGPL and still respect the license.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#188

Post by DagAgren »

theon144 wrote: post #159
DagAgren wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it better that no tools will actually be able to export the format? Also, a GPL-licensed encoder will in no way stop incompatible extensions.

Uh, LGPL explicitly doesn't prevent even proprietary software from using the encoder?

Not explicitly, but in practice, it does. It is often not viable to jump through the hoops required to do it. That is, if your lawyers will even let you try.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#189

Post by jillesvangurp »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #172
jillesvangurp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we have jpeg is because png is not good enough for photos and people prefer the lossy compression of jpeg over using png. The reason other lossy formats are struggling is because they are still lossy. This promises to basically be good enough for just about anything. That sounds like a big promise but if true, there's very little stopping major browser implementing support for this. I'd say progressive dec…

File size matters for networks, not compression. Compressors have an interface where you specify desired file size and the program tries to produce a file of that size. With better compression algorithm the image will be just of a better quality, time to download and cost per GB will be the same.

This algorithm is supposedly lossless and requires no fiddling with such settings. So a good enough non lossy algorithm could be quite disruptive. Of course with a lossy algorithm, if you throw enough detail away it's going to be smaller.

Re: FLIF – Free Lossless Image Format

#190

Post by supportlocal4h »

jstummbillig wrote: post #130
thaumasiotes wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?

Progressive mode is better than a loading spinner in the same way that PWAs are better than a loading spinner: By getting mostly usable content in as little time as possible to the user you decrease perceived wait, you decrease time to interactive and you increase perceived loading speed (even though time to full load might be the same or slightly increased).

Progressive photos always irritate me. The photo comes on my screen all blurry and out of focus and I'm disappointed that the moment I thought I had captured didn't turn out. Then, 3 seconds later, the picture changes and gets slightly better. Then I'm hopeful, but disappointed again. Then i think, "maybe it's not loaded yet", so i wait and hope. Then 2 seconds later it changes again. Is it done? Is it loaded now? Will it get better? Is my computer just dog slow? How long should I wait before I assume it's as good as it's going to get?

I know it's a small thing and doesn't really matter, but I don't like progressive photos.

Edit: This is just one context. There are plenty of other contexts where progressive is very useful.

Post reply on HN