491–500 of 622 posts
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.
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.
> There is just no need for a PNG update, just adopt JPEG XL. Tell that to Google. They gave up on XL in Chrome[1] and essentially killed its adoption. [1] https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40168998#comment85
It is only a matter of time until the Chrome team has to reverse their decision.
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.
JPEG-XL's lossy modular mode is a very unique feature which needs a lot more exposure than it has. It is well-suited to non-photographic drawings or images that aren't continuous, and have never touched any JPEG-like codecs. It has different kinds of artifacts than what you typically see in a DCT image codec. Rather than ringing, you get slight pixellation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost nowhere that supports uploading GIFs supports APNG or animated WEBP. The back end support is so low it's close to zero. Which is really frustrating.
Do you mean services that reencode gif files to webm/mp4? apng just works everywhere that png works, and will remain animated as long as it's not re-encoded. You can even have one frame that gets shown if and only if animation is not supported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about file extensions?
File extensions are just a hint about what the file might be and have nothing to do with what the file actually is. If the server sets the MIME type, the browser will use that as the hint. But even beyond that, most file formats have a bit of a header at the start of the file that declares the actual format of the file. Browsers already can understand that and use the correct render for a file without an extension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extensibility of PNG has been amply used, as intended, for proprietary chunks that hold application specific data (e.g. PICO-8 games) without bothering other software.
Doesn't pico-8 store the data in the least significant bits of colour? Maybe it got updated to use chunks.
https://pico-8.fandom.com/wiki/P8PNGFileFormat
Actual cases of proprietary chunks include iDOT from Apple (apparently a performance optimization for plain images)
https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/895-Co...
and the Macromedia Fireworks save files
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4242402/the-fireworks-pn...
Author here. Hello everyone! Feel free to ask me anything. I'll go ahead and dispel some doubts I already see here: - It isn't really a "new format". It's an update to the existing format. - It is very backwards compatible. -- Old programs will load new PNGs to the best of their capability. A user will still know "that is a picture of a red apple". There also seems to be some confusion about how PNGs work internally.…
This is great but also has the issue that users might not notice that their setup is giving them a less than optimal result. Of course that is probably still better than not having backwards compatibility.
Edit: Seems the backwards compatibility isn't as great as it could be. Old programs show a washed out image instead which sucks. This should have been avoidable in the same way JPG gain maps work so that you only need updated programs to take advantage of the increased gamut on more-than-sRGB screens and not to correctly show colors that fit into sRGB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure! Chris Lilley--one of the original PNG co-authors--has a post with an example HDR image: https://svgees.us/blog/cICP.html It is about half way down, with the birthday cake. Generally, us tech nerds have phones that are capable of displaying it well. So perhaps view the page on your phone. What you should look for is the cake, the pink tips in her hair, and the background being more vivid. For me, the pink in the…
I never realized how limited sRGB is. I guess this is why people liked CRT TVs, and why you could never watch analog TV properly on a PC screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure! Chris Lilley--one of the original PNG co-authors--has a post with an example HDR image: https://svgees.us/blog/cICP.html It is about half way down, with the birthday cake. Generally, us tech nerds have phones that are capable of displaying it well. So perhaps view the page on your phone. What you should look for is the cake, the pink tips in her hair, and the background being more vivid. For me, the pink in the…
Thank you for the examples. I tried the one with a pink cake. Turns out that on my machine only web browsers are capable of displaying the image properly. All viewers (IrfanView, XnView, Nomacs, Windows Photos) and editors (Paint .NET, GIMP) that I've tried only showed the "washed out" picture.