531–540 of 622 posts
Reading the linked blog post on the new cICP chunk type [0], it looks like the "proper HDR support" isn't something that you couldn't already do with an embedded ICC profile, but instead a much-abbreviated form of the colorspace information suitable for small image files. [0] https://svgees.us/blog/cICP.html
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes two image format names which I will refuse to pronounce correctly (the other being GIF [1]). [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/22/tech/web/pronounce-gif
The only logic I ever hear for using a hard G is because that's how Graphics is said. Yet I never hear people saying jay-feg.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linguistic prescriptivism is wrong , and people who promote it are showing they have zero respect for others when they don't have to.
Linguistic prescriptivism has nothing to do with it. English has both pronunciations for "gi" based on origin. Giraffe, giant, ginger, etc from Latin; gift, give, (and presumably others) from Germanic roots. Using the preferred one is just a matter of politeness. Also, it's quite ironic to prescribe "linguistic prescriptivism" as wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's poor, only because Google is using their stranglehold on browsers, to push their own WebP trash. That company can't get broken up soon enough.
Firefox also doesn’t support JPEG XL out of the box, and Chrome does support the new PNG, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Those are indeed the "magic" bytes of PNG. It's a very clever choice meant to ensure the transport layer didn't mess with it. To start, there's a byte with the upper bit set which ensures an "8-bit clean" transport. If it's stripped, it becomes a harmless tab. Then the literal "PNG" text so you can see it in a text editor. Then a CR-LF pair to check for CR-LF to LF translations. Then, a CTRL-Z to stop display on DOS-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
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.