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

411–420 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#411

Post by ProgramMax »

sylware wrote: post #135

Until everything new is "optional". Hopefully PNG won't be the target of "enshitification". We all know that for file formats, there is a very strong pressure from developers and vendors for that to happen since it favors, hard, vendor and developer lock-in. If not careful, even with a team of PHD devs won't be able to write alternatives encoders/decoders that "reasonbly" and the world will end-up with very few alter…

Everything new is optional. This is not a breaking change. Old PNGs and software continue to work just fine. And these new changes are backwards-compatible as much as they can be. So old software can display a new PNG and be mostly correct. By that I mean, the user will still say "it is a picture of a red apple". But if the software isn't HDR, they might not get the bright highlights and inky blacks of the HDR PNG.

Re: A new PNG spec

#412

Post by ProgramMax »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #104
DidYaWipe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PNG is popular with some Commercial Application developers, but the exposure and color problems still look 1980's awful in some use-cases." What are you talking about? It's a bitmap. It has nothing to do with "exposure and color problems."

In general, with some applications people hit the limits pretty quickly with PNG and JPG. In our use-case, the EXR format essentially meant a rendered part of the source image wouldn't be "overexposed" by the render pipeline, and layers could be later adjusted to better match in Resolve. Example: your scenes fireball simulation won't look like a fried egg photo from 1980 due to hitting 0xFF. If you've never encounter…

0xFF is 8-bit. PNG supports up to 16-bit. It always has. Plus, PNG now supports full HDR so the fireball won't look washed out.

I think your experience is with some tool that made bad PNGs. That is a problem with the tool, not the format.

Re: A new PNG spec

#414

Post by lioeters »

arp242 wrote: post #303
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…

libng seems to get regular updates? A release just a few days ago. There's a PR for APNG: https://github.com/pnggroup/libpng/pull/706 – it seems there was some work for HDR in e.g. https://github.com/pnggroup/libpng/pull/635 as well. Related: https://github.com/pnggroup/libpng/issues/507

Oh cool! I was looking at this page, which looks official but apparently not up to date.

https://www.libpng.org/pub/png/libpng.html

Looks like this is the proper location for the project.

https://libpng.sourceforge.io/

Re: A new PNG spec

#415

Post by speps »

joshmarinacci wrote: post #335

A fun trick I do with my web based drawing tools is to save a JSON representation of your document as a comment field inside of a PNG. This way the doc you save is immediately usable as an image but can also be loaded back into the editor. Also means your downloads folder isn’t littered with unintelligible JSON files.

Macromedia Fireworks did it 20 years ago, the PNG was the default save format. Of course, it wasn’t JSON stored in there…

Re: A new PNG spec

#416

Post by creatonez »

kfkdjajgjic wrote: post #369

This is just rebranded MNG format that the PNG group tried to push as a ”standard” 20 years ago. Firefox removed MNG for a reason.

I'm confused what aspect of this you're mad about. MNG is an animated format? Well, Firefox has supported APNG (Animated PNG) for the past 17 years without it ever being standardized and it has become extremely widely adopted. And... this new spec attempts to standardize it.

Re: A new PNG spec

#417

Post by lsaferite »

joking wrote: post #166
mavhc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your non-smartphone camera doesn't have enough ram/speed to do that I assume (when in burst mode) If a smartphone camera is doing it, then bad camera app!

the main reason is probably that the chip is already outputting the image in a lossy format, and if you reorder the pixels you must reencode the image which means degrading the image, so it's much better to just change the exif orientation.

> the chip is already outputting the image in a lossy format

Could you explain this one?

Re: A new PNG spec

#418

Post by poly2it »

thesz wrote: post #297
ksec wrote: post #170

It 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

HALIC discussion page [1] says otherwise. [1] https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Loss... It looks like LEA 0.5 is the champion. And HALIC is not even close to ten in this [2] lossless image compression benchmark. [2] https://github.com/WangXuan95/Image-Compression-Benchmark

It looks like HALIC offers very impressive decode speeds within its compression range.

Re: A new PNG spec

#419

Post by IvanK_net »

joshmarinacci wrote: post #335

A fun trick I do with my web based drawing tools is to save a JSON representation of your document as a comment field inside of a PNG. This way the doc you save is immediately usable as an image but can also be loaded back into the editor. Also means your downloads folder isn’t littered with unintelligible JSON files.

Macromedia did this when saving Fireworks files into PNG.

Also, Adobe saves AI files into a PDF (every AI file is a PDF file), and Photoshop can save PSD files into TIFF files (people wonder why these TIFFs have several layers in Photoshop, but just one layer in all other software).

Re: A new PNG spec

#420

Post by npteljes »

LocalH wrote: post #334
npteljes wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I hate jif , thinking about it, "GPU" works the same - we say gee-pee-you and not gh-pee-you . Garbage Collection is also gee-cee . So it's only logical that jif is the correct one - even if it's not the widely accepted one. Wrt/ communication, aside from personal preference, one can either respect the creator, or the audience. If I stand in front of 10 colleagues, 10 out of them would not understand jif ,…

The whole debate seems to be a modern phenomenon to me - from my anecdotal experience back in the day, it was never questioned by computer enthusiasts that it was pronounced "jif".

I have the same experience - but with gif. Mind you, me and my circle are not native English speakers.

The debate itself is old. "Since the 90s" Wikipedia says, and keep in mind the format was is from 1987 - so I would say the debate is on from the get-go. Appropriate, too, if you think back, arguing about this kind of stuff was pretty common. Emacs vs vim, browser wars, different kinds of computers, tribalism everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_GIF

Post reply on HN