Slashdot Mirror
Can A New Open Photo File Format Replace JPEGs? (cnet.com)
Got lossless compression? An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Google, Mozilla and others in a group called the Alliance for Open Media are working on a rival photo technology. In testing so far, the images are 15 percent smaller than Apple's HEIC photo format, said Tim Terriberry, a Mozilla principal research engineer working on the project. But smaller sizes are just the beginning... it's got a strong list of allies, an affinity for web publishing and modern features that could make it the best contender yet for overcoming JPEG's 1990s-era shortcomings... JPEG isn't just limited by needlessly large file sizes. It's also weak when it comes to supporting a wider range of bright and dark tones, a broader spectrum of colors, and graphic elements like text and logos...
The HEIC's new rival is from the Alliance for Open Media, a group whose top priority is a video compression technology called AV1 that's free of patent licensing requirements. It's got heavy hitters on board, including top browser makers Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and the most recent new member, Apple -- though Apple's plans haven't been made public. And it's got major streaming-video companies, too: Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Facebook, videoconferencing powerhouse Intel and Google's YouTube. And with the support of chip designers Intel, Nvidia and Arm, AV1 should get the hardware acceleration that's crucial to making video easy on our laptop and phone batteries.
To use Apple's HEIC, "makers of software, processors and phones must jump through a lot of hoops to license patents," which CNET predicts "means HEIC will have trouble succeeding on the web: patent barriers are antithetical to the web's open nature."
The HEIC's new rival is from the Alliance for Open Media, a group whose top priority is a video compression technology called AV1 that's free of patent licensing requirements. It's got heavy hitters on board, including top browser makers Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and the most recent new member, Apple -- though Apple's plans haven't been made public. And it's got major streaming-video companies, too: Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Facebook, videoconferencing powerhouse Intel and Google's YouTube. And with the support of chip designers Intel, Nvidia and Arm, AV1 should get the hardware acceleration that's crucial to making video easy on our laptop and phone batteries.
To use Apple's HEIC, "makers of software, processors and phones must jump through a lot of hoops to license patents," which CNET predicts "means HEIC will have trouble succeeding on the web: patent barriers are antithetical to the web's open nature."
HEIF is not an Apple format. Apple only got involved with it years after it was standardized by MPEG in 2015.
Can someone tell us what's wrong or deficient with JPEG?
Quoting the post (not even the linked text):
"JPEG isn't just limited by needlessly large file sizes. It's also weak when it comes to supporting a wider range of bright and dark tones, a broader spectrum of colors, and graphic elements like text and logos..."
24-bit PNGs are lossless, so if they incorporate photographic elements, the compression ratio is very bad.
An image format that balances lossy compression for photographic content but which can also efficiently handle graphic elements efficiently without major artifacts would be a good thing.
Graphic artist for 13 years here: FUCK JPEG.
AV1 outperforms JPEG. AV1 delivers a smaller file size at the same quality or better quality at the same file size. Try this comparison of JPEG and AV1 at the same file size.
I generated SHA-256 hashes of all my precious family photos going back 20+ years then deleted the originals. I figure if we ever wanted to look at them, I can just reverse hash 'em!
Trolling is a art,
Heic is an image container.
You're thinkig of HEIF. HEIC is the file extension convention Apple adopted to indicate a HEIF file which contains HEVC encoded images.
With backing from every major tech company but Apple
No. Apple has joined the Alliance for Open Media. So Apple is an AV1 backer as well.
PNG doesn't replace JPEG. JPEG enables lossy compression for a smaller file size, PNG does not. AV1 has both lossy and lossless modes. AV1 lossless outperforms PNG. Lossless WebP (based on VP8, an ancestor of AV1) also outperforms PNG.
And in an ironic twist of fate, 50MB animated GIFs replaced 1MB MP4s for short silent video clips.
#DeleteFacebook
http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yol...
Sadly, I think it's got some stuff caught up in patents or something - the demo is very good.
I must admit, image wise, we haven't gone far in a long time. I'd like to see a very high compression lossless replacement myself and now that I (occassionally) do some light graphics work, JPG NEEDS to die, as soon as humanly possible, it's awful.
JPEG was made for photography, therefore you have no business using it for graphic design. If you do use it, it tells me you are incompetent.
But you, in all your intellectual superiority, don't have the reading comprehension to grasp the (very valid) point he just made about the real world that handles your output for things like printing. NOBODY CARES what file format you work in, archive in, render from or anything else. What matters is what you can transport to the end user or print shop in real life. Which, if you were competent yourself, you'd know.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
At one point, there was a push to make Slash support Unicode better. That ended when vandals figured out how to use bidirectional override code points to spoof moderation scores and otherwise wreck Slashdot's layout. Others used the new code points to post obscene "ASCII art".* That led to a code point whitelist and a halt on further development of Unicode support in Slash.
Rehash, a fork of Slash maintained by SoylentNews PBC, fully supports UTF-8. I don't know exactly what it does with current and future directionality control characters.
* I mean ASCII art in the broad sense: use of characters from other blocks for their glyphs rather than their meaning, in the same way that ASCII art in the strict sense uses Basic Latin.
Sorry, but Adobe is the one that does the fucking in that relationship. The world's artists collectively decided that nothing Adobe does can ever drive them from Photoshop, so every month, bend over, pants down...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Yes, is definitely a thing:
http://makeanddo4d.com/spreads... :)
PNG does not compress as well as JPG, but the difference between a display latency of 32 microseconds and one of 53 microseconds is meaningless when eyeball latency is measured in milliseconds
Microseconds? You're off by a factor of 1000.
I took a 1024x640 TIFF photograph I had laying around and converted it to a 50KB jpg with moderate compression and a 500KB PNG and uploaded them to a well connected web server (10Gbit interface to the internet)
Then loaded them both in my home computer's browser. The jpg file took 86msec (that's milliseconds, not microseconds) to load, and the PNG file took 796msec (average of 5 tries). My home internet connection is 100mbit, pretty decent by American standards, if not by world standards.
I don't know about you, but I can definitely notice the difference between 800 msec and 80 msec.
Other places use paper that makes sense. One sheet of A0 is 1 square meter with an aspect ratio of sqrt(2). Keep cutting it in half to get A1, A2, A3, and so on, all with the same aspect ratio. A4 is close to 8.5x11, and is used for the same things. Metric paper really shines when you want to shrink/enlarge to the next paper size, thanks to the common aspect ratio.
TIFF is a container format, not an image storage format. There's big difference in scope between PNG and TIFF. The defining a container is what makes TIFF so messy, but it is also what makes it far more useful than PNG. It has far more flexibility and PNG can't replace it in all cases. Classic point: You can't even save a 32bpp file in PNG as it tops out at 16bpp.
nobody fucking cares if you have 'truer hues' or some other bullshit in your app or web site images. 99% won't even care, or even notice, if you use a higher compression on jpg.. digital tv (especially cable and satellite) is full of compression artifacts and those same people don't see it there either.
Correction: YOU don't see the artifacts & aren't bothered by them. Quite a few programmers do, and find them to be highly objectionable. Ergo, programmers are most highly-motivated to solve problems that annoy programmers, even if "normal people" don't care.
Specific example: telecine judder. "Normal" people see it & think "film look". Programmers see it & think, "how can I change the native framerate to an integer multiple of 24 to match, and/or algorithmically-tween additional synthetic frames to make the motion smoother?"