281–290 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can all be handled by Gulp or Grunt and designers won't have to worry about it if someone on the team can code.
What if I use this: http://getbootstrap.com/examples/starter-template/ and add an img tag with a src to a .bgp? Will it render when I refresh the browser? I see that the BPG images are decoded in your browser with a small Javascript decoder. So a JS file is referenced in the HTML, and everything will run ok when I refresh? That's the promise?
I was ready to pass by this post with a yawn until I saw where it was coming from: Fabrice Bellard. He's no doubt an absolute freakin' genius. And if anybody knows about image conversion, it's him. Even the things he does just for fun are impressive. Have you ever booted up Linux inside your browser? http://bellard.org/jslinux/
>I was ready to pass by this post with a yawn until I saw where it was coming from Would this have been less interesting or valuable if it hadn't been made by a hacker celebrity?
The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
If you want Designers to start using this, then we need a photoshop plugin, an illustrator plugin, a Sketch plugin, a pixelmator plugin. Make it easier for us to export images as a .BGP. If the images are truly smaller without affecting the current user experience of users using mostly modern web browsers, then we're more likely to pick up on using this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there hardware support for JPEG decoding on most mobile devices? If so, I imagine it couldn't compete performance and battery life wise. I remember Mozilla did a software video decoder once in JavaScript. Still, it is quite amazing.
this will definitely need to be hardware-supported for decoding. on my phone, the decode time far exceeds the time it would take to serve up a bigger jpg file. the demos reminded me what browsing on dialup was like. in fact dialup was better cause at least the decoding/loading was progressive/incremental, which doesnt seem to be the case here. i assume it's just the way the decoder is implemented?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or his formula (Bellard's Formula) used for his pi calculation record.
and software radio stuff (sadly closed source and proprietary)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the bottom of the linked article is the answer to your question, with links to more information. tl;dr (obviously tl;dr): This format is very, very easy to implement despite the patent risk, simply by assuming that any device new enough to be considering including it will have already licensed the relevant patents.
The patents would only cover the implementation that comes with the hardware, not any other software implementation running on it. This means you'd have to use the hardware decoder APIs to decode images, which is less than ideal when you want fast, low latency decoding.
I appreciate the historical tradition of using the photo of beautiful young Lena Söderberg as a test image, but it's time to move on. It's fun for us hetero males, but like it or not, this sends a message to young women that they aren't welcome in this field. I wish Fabrice Bellard would have left them out of the demo set. Having said that, all those demo photos do look good. I was wondering how we were going to see…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The smallish downside of continuing with it may outweigh the very small upside. The image by itself might not be a big deal, but we're trying to disrupt the pattern of women being used only as objects, not perpetuate it.
If we used a male model as a photographic test subject here, is that not the sexist objectification of males? Should we use an unattractive person or an animal instead? Are you going to attack the very notion of beauty or the fact that women are the "fairer sex"?
Of course I'm going to attack that. Women are required to be beautiful or they are deemed worthless, or failures. So they put a lot of work into it from a fear of failure. Men can be beautiful too, especially to a woman's eye which you've never seen through. If men were made to worry about their appearance as much as women, we'd be "fair" too.