Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#71

Post by pasta »

vladdanilov wrote: post #48

> New lossy image format gives 55 % less bytes than jpeg with the same butteraugli score. It's the most serious attempt to date to make an open source replacement for JPEG which misses a lot of advances in data/image compression. I hope it stops the spreading of HEIF plagued by patents.

I had high hopes for FLIF. What I think is great is that the client can control how much data is downloaded. This is great for responsive use.

Unfortunately the license is holding back implementations.

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#72

Post by DannyBee »

shallot_router wrote: post #58
DannyBee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This option is also not available if your project is considered to be too similar to something Google's working on (due to obvious IP issues.)" Speaking as an IARC committee member, this is not quite correct. We have in fact, approved plenty of stuff that is close to what google is working on. For example, we've approved plenty of search engines. (The overall approval rate is >96% last i looked). It's not so simple…

Out of curiosity, what are the kinds of projects that IARC won't approve?

An example would be those where the person is really trying to get the IP to create a separate company that competes with Google in some area, and then quit. Yes, this happens. It's not even that we care or don't care in that case, we are just literally the wrong forum.

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#73

Post by jimrandomh »

azhenley wrote: post #2

"This is not an official Google product." Can anyone explain this to me? It is posted under the Google organization. Are they just not actively supporting it?

From the readme:

> "This project is in the initial research stage, please don't use it for any purpose."

So it's not a product at all, it's a research project. In particular, not being a product means that if you try to store or distribute images in this format, they'll probably be hard to recover a few years from now.

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#77

Post by vladdanilov »

trevyn wrote: post #63
vladdanilov wrote: post #48

> New lossy image format gives 55 % less bytes than jpeg with the same butteraugli score. It's the most serious attempt to date to make an open source replacement for JPEG which misses a lot of advances in data/image compression. I hope it stops the spreading of HEIF plagued by patents.

Uh, WebP?

WebP lossy is aimed at low quality (Q<75) and YUV420 only.

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#78

Post by Houshalter »

jordache wrote: post #29

yawn.. let us know when a major browser implements support for it...

With web assembly it should be possible to use new image formats even if the browser doesn't support it. This will improve in the future when wasm gets access to SIMD instructions and GPU computation.

Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet

#79

Post by DannyBee »

trymas wrote: post #68
polk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you work at Google everything you make, even in your spare time, belongs to them. That's how the contracts work, unfortunately.

> If you work at Google __everything you make__, even in your spare time, belongs to them. Okay, google makes software and if you make software on your spare time maybe it's reasonable that company does not want to leak IP and thus produces these contracts. But what about these stupid examples: - Building a backyard deck for your house - Taking pictures as a hobby - Doing woodworking (e.g. making a chair and a table…

Errr. Decks are not intellectual property, for starters.

"Even if those examples are completely rubbish and won't stand in court for Google, it's still absurd idea. You get payed salary for your time and work - that's it! That's where Google's power ends. After hours you go home and it's bullshit that they can own your personal work done on your own freetime at your private property with private tools and your own ideas. If they want to own everything then they should pay hourly average times 24hours , times 365 days per year as a salary, because I am giving all my time and work for them, while I am in contract with them. "

You are sorely confused about the state of the law in the US. In the US, in most states, it doesn't even have to be written into an employment contract. The employer will simply own the IP, period.

Post reply on HN