[deleted]
A new PNG spec
271–280 of 622 posts
Re: A new PNG spec
#272Earlier 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.
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.
That doesn't seem to apply to images that aren't multiples of 8 in size, does it?
Re: A new PNG spec
#273It 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
> If there are any problems it is its encoding and decoding speed and resources. And this will improve over time, like jpg encoders and decoders did.
I hope I am very wrong but this isn't given. In the past reference encoder and decoder do not concern about speed and resources, but last 10 years have shown most reference encoder and decoder has already put considerable effort into speed optimisation. And it seems people are already looking to hardware JPEG XL implementation. ( I hope and guess this is for Lossless only )
Re: A new PNG spec
#274[deleted]
Re: A new PNG spec
#275Seems 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 nev…
the FSE layer isn't responsible for finding these sorts of patterns in an image codec. The domain modeling turns that sort of pattern into repeated data and then the FSE goes to town on the output.
Re: A new PNG spec
#276Earlier 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”.
I've said "jif" for almost 40 years, and I'm not stopping anytime soon. Hard-g is wrong , and those who use it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to. It's the tech equivalent to the shopping cart problem. What do you do when there is no incentive one way or the other? Do you do the right thing, or do you disrespect others?
Linguistic prescriptivism is wrong, and people who promote it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to.
Re: A new PNG spec
#277Earlier 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”.
I've said "jif" for almost 40 years, and I'm not stopping anytime soon. Hard-g is wrong , and those who use it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to. It's the tech equivalent to the shopping cart problem. What do you do when there is no incentive one way or the other? Do you do the right thing, or do you disrespect others?
Is this a bit?
Re: A new PNG spec
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've said "jif" for almost 40 years, and I'm not stopping anytime soon. Hard-g is wrong , and those who use it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to. It's the tech equivalent to the shopping cart problem. What do you do when there is no incentive one way or the other? Do you do the right thing, or do you disrespect others?
Linguistic prescriptivism is wrong , and people who promote it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to.
I agree that language is fluid. However, when it comes to names, I think people should have enough respect to pronounce things how the creator (or owner, depending on the situation) of the name says it should be pronounced. Too often people will mispronounce someone's name as a sign of intentional disrespect (see Kamala Harris for a fairly recent prominent example) and I cannot get behind that. You see a similar disrespect in the hard-soft discourse around the pronunciation of GIF. A lot of people use the hard g and mock the creator for thinking that soft g should ever have been right.
Naming is probably one of the few language areas that I think should be prescriptive, even while language at large is descriptive.
Re: A new PNG spec
#27920 years?? What took so long.
Re: A new PNG spec
#280Earlier 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?
Any industry. e.g. cars - not everyone is physically able to drive books - blind people can't read music - deaf people can't hear It is a form of 80/20 or 90/10 rule the last small percentage costs as much as the majority.
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but your examples are terrible. Music industry doesn't have too much to do to help deaf people. It's not like they're deliberately making deaf-inaccessible music instead of relying on the old good deaf-accessible music formats.
(Also, the parent comment's example is also not so good because as someone else pointed just because the top 25% websites are serving webp it does mean they're not serving alternative formats for those who does not support it, as this is quite trivial to setup)