Slashdot Mirror
FLIF: Free Lossless Image Format
nickweller sends a link to an informational post about FLIF, the Free, Lossless Image Format. It claims to outperform PNG, lossless WebP, and other popular formats on any kind of image. "On photographs, PNG performs poorly while WebP, BPG and JPEG 2000 compress well (see plot on the left). On medical images, PNG and WebP perform relatively poorly while BPG and JPEG 2000 work well (see middle plot). On geographical maps, BPG and JPEG 2000 perform (extremely) poorly while while PNG and WebP work well (see plot on the right). In each of these three examples, FLIF performs well — even better than any of the others." FLIF uses progressive decoding to provide fully-formed lossy images from partial downloads in bandwidth-constrained situations. Best of all, FLIF is free software, released under the GNU GPLv3.
Using GPLv3 will all but ensure no corporate/enterprise support, thus leaving the older, less useful formats in place.
Sometimes zealots get in their own way...
In lossless compression, it beats TIFF hands-down for the mainstream compression methods (packbits, LZW, ZIP). You can use pretty much whatever compression you want in a TIFF file (it's more of a container format than an encoding definition), but given how well FLIF compresses vs other image compression methods, it's pretty good.
The progressive loading is also superior to TIFF, which generally don't use progressive at all. I'm not sure how much this matters, though, as their example of using it for responsive design assumes that the graphic at lower resolutions 'as is' gives an acceptable enough result to replace current solutions that serve a different resolution image that may well have been specifically tuned for a given resolution/bandwidth. JPG already has similar progressive loading, and I don't know of any browser that will halt a JPG download after the Nth iteration deeming it 'good enough'.
It also apparently has animation support, which may be better than APNG and MNG and others. For now GIF still seems to rule the animated image domain, despite its many shortcomings (imgur's faked-out video -> gif -> mp4-served-via-html-named-gifv doesn't count).
On most other fronts, though, it seems TIFF (and other formats) may be superior. A rather big one is that it doesn't yet support metadata. Another big one for the graphics industry would be lack of CMYk and other color spaces.
It also seems to support 'only' 16 bits per channel. There's a variety of 32bpc encodings for TIFF (straight, LogLUV, etc) and I do hope that it's just an arbitrary limit such that the work done in FLIF could conceivably be added to formats like OpenEXR.
That would also largely take care of concerns like the lack of additional channels, layers, etc. that can be presented in TIFF. This would make OpenEXR the container format and FLIF the encoding (or, at least, the compression).
That would still place it squarely in the interest of those dealing with graphics (a very fast decode of the progressive version used when framescrubbing, then loading the full 10k plate when paused for a bit, for example), and not so much the average consumer.
For consumer adoption, it would need broad support among browsers (lack of webp support means that hasn't particularly taken off), from digital imaging device manufacturers (you're more likely to upload 'a FLIF file' if that's what rolled out of the camera / got written to the SD card to begin with) and in common software (but that tends to follow from the other two).
How much CPU time does it take to compress vs the others?
How much memory does it need to compress vs the others?
How much CPU and memory does it take to decompress vs the others?
Hard to say it's better without a complete picture.
NASA might be interested in it for transmitting data back from its deep space probes (New Horizons is gonna take a year to transmit back all the pictures it took). Likewise, someone might implement it as a way to reduce bandwidth when browsing the web over expensive satellite data connections while at sea. Those are the only use cases I can think of where low bandwidth still matters.
Bandwidth and storage space are cheap.
Bandwidth is not cheap. Cellular and satellite Internet tend to cost $5 to $15 per GB.
Nor is storage space cheap, especially with the premium for a 64 GB phone over a 16 GB one. Also servers, as Anonymous Coward mentioned in #50646339.