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

221–230 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#221

Post by Aachen »

qwertfisch wrote: post #202

Seems a bit too late? And also, JPEG XL supports all the features and uses already advanced compression (finite-state entropy, like ZStandard). It offers lossy and lossless compression, animated pictures, HDR, EXIF etc. There is just no need for a PNG update, just adopt JPEG XL.

> advanced compression (finite-state entropy, like ZStandard)

I've not tried it on images, but wouldn't zstandard be exceedingly bad at gradients? It completely fails to compress numbers that change at a fixed rate

Bzip2 does that fine, not sure why https://chaos.social/@luc/114531687791022934 The two variables (inner and outer loop) could be two color channels that change at different rates. Real-world data will never be a clean i++ like it is here, but more noise surely isn't going to help the algorithm compared to this clean example

Re: A new PNG spec

#222

Post by Retr0id »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #186
eviks wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [not] Officially supports Exif data How can you call this basic fail a success?

Exif data might be important to you but it clearly hasn't stopped the adoption of png.

People crammed exif data into PNGs anyway, and now they can continue to do that but in conformance with the spec.

Re: A new PNG spec

#223

Post by PaulHoule »

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.

Blame Adobe. For what they charge for Creative Suite it ought to have supported it a long time ago.

My webcrawler sucks down a lot of WebP images, at least it did before it got the smackdown from Cloudflare.

Re: A new PNG spec

#225

Post by PaulHoule »

wltr wrote: post #216
echelon wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Instagram's image uploading interface is klunky compared to Mastodon which is entirely unfunded.

Re: A new PNG spec

#226

Post by socalgal2 »

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.

Just tested reddit. It works fine with .webp I don't have an instagram account

Re: A new PNG spec

#227

Post by Retr0id »

meindnoch wrote: post #123

Parallel compression/decompression is already possible via Z_SYNC_FLUSH.

Parallel decompression of Z_SYNC_FLUSH'd data is not possible without additional metadata to tell you where the sync points are.

Re: A new PNG spec

#228

Post by naikrovek »

dspillett wrote: post #199
369548684892826 wrote: post #196

A fun fact about PNG, the correct pronunciation is defined in the specification > PNG is pronounced “ping” See the end of Section 1 [0] 0: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png.pdf

Because the creator of gifs telling the world how he pronounced it made such a huge difference :) Not sure I'll bother to reprogram myself from “png”, “pung”, or “pee-enn-gee”.

When someone makes a baby, you call that person by their real name with the correct pronunciation, don’t you?

So why can’t you do that with GIF or PNG? People that create things get to name them.

Re: A new PNG spec

#229

Post by martin_a »

PaulHoule wrote: post #223
Geezus_42 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blame Adobe. For what they charge for Creative Suite it ought to have supported it a long time ago. My webcrawler sucks down a lot of WebP images, at least it did before it got the smackdown from Cloudflare.

Adobe Photoshop has support for WebP (through "Save as", not "Export") but I don't think WebP is important.

Re: A new PNG spec

#230

Post by kllrnohj »

klabb3 wrote: post #192
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.

TIL, and hard agree (on face value). I’ve been struck by this with arbitrary rotation of images depending on application, very annoying. What are the arguments for this? It would seem easier for everyone to rotate and then store exif for the original rotation if necessary.

> What are the arguments for this? It would seem easier for everyone to rotate and then store exif for the original rotation if necessary.

Performance. Rotation during rendering is often free, whereas the camera would need an intermediate buffer + copy if it's unable to change the way it samples from the sensor itself.

Post reply on HN