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

231–240 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#231

Post by pixl97 »

chillingeffect wrote: post #209
debugnik wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even Google supports webp uploads in many of their web apps, and it's their format.

Could it be a lack of resources? Or some missing expertise? Maybe they could find some interns who are familiar with it? Maybe the entire world is so obsessed w AI, we don't even care about image formats anymore.

Honestly this kind of stuff happens all the time in large companies.

Interns won't want to work on a dead end like this. Moreso they need to be supervised by someone that doesn't want to get removed by being the lowest X% usefulness in a company. So all these existing tools that aren't primary revenue generators just sit on coast mode.

Re: A new PNG spec

#232

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: A new PNG spec

#233

Post by echelon »

socalgal2 wrote: post #226
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.

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

Try https://www.reddit.com/settings/profile

There are so many uneven areas of Reddit where WebP doesn't work. Old reddit, profile support, mod tools, etc.

Re: A new PNG spec

#234

Post by bayindirh »

cm2187 wrote: post #122
bayindirh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JPEG is no different. Only the decoder is specified. As long as the decoder decodes what you give it to the image you wanted to see, you can implement anything. This is how imgoptim/squash/aerate/dietJPG works. By (ab)using this flexibility. Same is also true for the most advanced codecs. MPEG-* family and MP3 comes to my mind. Nothing stops PNG from defining a "set of decoders", and let implementers loose on that sp…

Video files aren't a good analogy. Before God placed VLC and ffmpeg on earth, you had to install a galaxy of codecs on your computer to get a chance to read a video file and you could never tell exactly what codec was stored in a container, nor if you had the right codec version. Unfortunately there is no vlc and ffmpeg for images (I mean there is, the likes of imagemagick, but the vast majority of software doesn't u…

I lived through that era (first K-Lite Codec Pack, then CCCP came along), but still it holds.

Proprietary or open, any visual codec is a battleground. Even in commercial settings, I vaguely remember people saying they prefer the end result of one encoder over another, for the same video/image format, not unlike how photographers judge cameras by their colors.

So maybe, this flexibility to PNG will enable or encourage people to write better or at least unorthodox encoders which can be decoded by standard compliant ones.

Re: A new PNG spec

#235

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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.

completely fails the second you want to do anything more than load it on a webpage

Photoshop still won’t open it, MacOS preview opens it but then demands to convert it to tiff when you try to edit it

Re: A new PNG spec

#236

Post by echelon »

PaulHoule wrote: post #225
wltr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This shows the unfortunate power of distribution.

It doesn't matter if the alternative is technically superior once the majority use the mainstream thing.

Re: A new PNG spec

#237

Post by whywhywhywhy »

martin_a wrote: post #229
PaulHoule wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it can’t open them

Re: A new PNG spec

#238

Post by airstrike »

naikrovek wrote: post #228
dspillett wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because PNGs won't answer back when I call them by some "correct" name.

Re: A new PNG spec

#239

Post by yuters »

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

Pronouncing it like that would invite confusion as the word ping is often used in messaging.

Re: A new PNG spec

#240

Post by airstrike »

kllrnohj wrote: post #230
klabb3 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is rotation during rendering free?
Post reply on HN