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

211–220 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#211

Post by JKCalhoun »

lioeters wrote: post #207
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.

> Not backwards compatible They say it's technically compatible since older image decoders should recognize the PNG file is using a different compression algorithm than the default. > Many programs already support the new PNG spec: Chrome, Safari, Firefox, iOS/macOS, Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve, Avid Media Composer... This is intentionally ignoring the fact that there are countless PNG decoders out in the wild, many u…

[flagged]

Re: A new PNG spec

#212

Post by [deleted] »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #211
lioeters wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not backwards compatible They say it's technically compatible since older image decoders should recognize the PNG file is using a different compression algorithm than the default. > Many programs already support the new PNG spec: Chrome, Safari, Firefox, iOS/macOS, Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve, Avid Media Composer... This is intentionally ignoring the fact that there are countless PNG decoders out in the wild, many u…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: A new PNG spec

#213

Post by Sharlin »

bastawhiz wrote: post #181
AlienRobot wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't even upload webp to instagram.

Which makes sense for an app made for photos: why would you capture a photograph to disk in a format made for distributing on the web?

Instagram hasn't even been primarily or even secondarily about photos for a long time. Indeed trying to "just" upload a photo is made super inconvenient these days.

Re: A new PNG spec

#214

Post by wltr »

jdiff wrote: post #183
wltr wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the issue is with your operating system then?

App support has very little to do with the operating system. OSes by and large will preview it just fine.

I meant Windows, as macOS and Linux are usually good with modern things. It’s trivial to add the support if you don’t have it. I have no idea about Windows, but I got this vibe of someone using Win7 in 2025 and complaining the world moved on and keeps moving on.

Re: A new PNG spec

#215

Post by Retr0id »

127 wrote: post #201
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.

There's a big issue that all old popular image formats are 8-bits. 10-bits or even 12-bits would help a lot with storing more information and maintaining editability.

PNG has supported 16-bits per channel since version 1.0 in 1998 (at least)

Re: A new PNG spec

#216

Post by wltr »

echelon wrote: post #210
wltr wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the issue is with your operating system then?

You can't use webp on Reddit, Instagram, and hundreds of other websites. Which is ironic because some of them serve images as webp.

That doesn’t mean it’s dead, it rather shows sheer incompetence of the web dev departments of these wonderful companies for whom webp or avif aren’t images, I guess.

Re: A new PNG spec

#218

Post by Aachen »

pchangr wrote: post #168
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?

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, th…

> it was a rational decision. And up to the 10% cut, management just didn’t want to do the extra investment

Rational, or economical? I find it rational to help someone in need since I'd want others to do the same to me, even if it's not financially profitable for me. Imo more factors flow into what's rational, but I understand what you mean by corporate greed working this way (less than 10% of people are blind, neither male nor female, run a free operating system or can't afford a new computer, etc., so yep they're not profitable groups and for-profits don't optimise for that)

Re: A new PNG spec

#219

Post by BeFlatXIII »

Geezus_42 wrote: post #165
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.

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.

Or convert before you upload because the image host has delusions about fighting the Google monoculture by refusing WebP support. Even more of a head scratcher when WebM is their only video format.

Re: A new PNG spec

#220

Post by NorwegianDude »

vbezhenar wrote: post #169
0points wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, cause thats just one of the features.

Images are often at different resolutions too, that way, depending on the pixel density of the device, and the physical size, the browser can select the photo that has high enough resolution, but not one that is needlessly large, while also selecting the preferred image format.

Post reply on HN