541–550 of 622 posts
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.
My file manager can’t handle them but my browser can. Edit: and good luck uploading the format to the majority of webforms that aren’t faang.
Earlier 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?
I can tell you, I have personally worked with a global corporation and we estimated that for one of their websites, supporting the 3% that we exclude by using “modern standards” would be more costly than the amount of revenue they get from them. So in that case, it was a rational decision. And up to the 10% cut, management just didn’t want to do the extra investment. So if something falls below that 10% threshold, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it was a rational decision. And up to the 10% cut, management just didn’t want to do the extra investment Rational, or economical? I find it rational to help someone in need since I'd want others to do the same to me, even if it's not financially profitable for me. Imo more factors flow into what's rational, but I understand what you mean by corporate greed working this way (less than 10% of people are blind, neith…
You are using the notion of rationality wrong. Rational reasoning can only help you find how to achieve goals that align with your values. It is strictly worthless in choosing your values. If a corporation has determined that profit maximization is their core tenet, excluding the needs of a minority of users can likely be deduced in a rational manner from that tenet. That is precisely why values need to be forced ont…
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.
> Look at poor webp What about it? "Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality levels" This literally saves houndred of thousand of cost, bandwith, electricity every month on the internet. In fact, I strongly belive that this is one of the greatest contributions from Google to society just like ZSTD from Facebook. https://developers.google.c…
Therein lies the lie.
Image and video compression comparisons are like statistics with the right corpus and evaluation criteria you can should whatever narrative you want to push.
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.
It is very backwards compatible. I'm not sure why you thought that. We jumped through quite a lot of hoops to make sure old software will be able to display new images. They simply won't display them optimally. But for the most part, that would be because the old software wouldn't display images optimally anyway. So the limit was the software, not the format. What I mean by this is old software that treats everything…
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.
Which aspects are not backwards compatible? You'll never be able to faithfully represent an HDR image on a non-HDR system, but you'll still see an image.
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.
I miss the days of old Amiga OS 3.x, where you had installable "DataTypes" that any program could make use of. If we had that, then all such programs could at least be updated to basic compatibility by simply updating the datatype.
So what do we call it? PNG3? The spec is titled "Portable Network Graphics Specification (Third Edition)". Surely they aren't releasing a new, incompatible version and expecting us to pretend it's the same format...? > This updates the existing image/png Internet Media type whyyyyyyy
New? Yes. Incompatible? No. We went to pretty extreme lengths to make sure old software worked with the new changes. Effectively, the limit will be the software, not the image. For example, you can imagine some old software that is unaware of color spaces and treats everything as sRGB. There is nothing we can do to make that software show a Display P3 correctly. However, we can still show the image well enough that a…
This is the first time I’ve seen HDR used to refer to wider color spaces and not extended brightness and contrast ratios.
If you wanted better compression, it's called Lossless WEBP. Lossless WEBP is such a nice codec. Compared with Lossless JXL, it decompresses many times more quickly, and while JXL usually produces a smaller file, it doesn't always. Lossless AVIF is not competitive. However, lossless WEBP does not support indexed color images. If you need palettes, you're stuck with PNG for now.