(16/03/2012 10:18 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  Yeah png is where its at!

No it isn't.

Here's an example... PNG (4074KB), FFVH (2079KB), x264lossless (1864KB) (high 4:4:4 so no chroma sub-sampling... well I admit YCbCr compresses better than RGB, but still shouldn't be nearly THAT much difference).  That's like over 100% increased efficiency.  Now I'm not suggesting that you should go compress all your images as video, that's beyond silly.  I'm just demonstrating that the technology behind PNG is outdated as fuck.

It's thinking like this that make adopting new technologies so slow, and why outdated crap like MP3 for audio and XviD for video are still the most popular formats despite the existence of much better.

(16/03/2012 10:24 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  

(16/03/2012 10:23 AM)eKusoshisut0 Wrote:  What about .bmp?

its allright, but those file sizes are intense.

Lol.

.BMP is pretty much raw RGB, that is, uncompressed image.  There's nothing to be "alright" or not about it.

(This post was last modified: 16/03/2012 10:06 PM by Assassinator.)

(16/03/2012 08:08 AM)Assassinator Wrote:  I wonder if MS's new JPEG_XR is any good.

Probably comparable to x264.  http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154749
I think the only good encoder for it is the Expression Encoder.

H.264 is a bit interesting in that many devices nowadays have H.264 High profile hardware decoders, so they may theoretically support H.264 still images, and without using much CPU.  Dunno whether they can handle typical camera resolutions though.
JPEG XR isn't an open format?  JPEG 2000 never really took off.  I'm doubting Google's WebP will get anywhere either.

(16/03/2012 08:33 AM)hibbyware Wrote:  I've never been a fan of jpg with it being a lossy format and not supporting transparency.

It's mainly that many cameras will only output JPEG unfortunately.  And also the multitude of JPEGs across the internet.
Not a fan, but that's how things are...

(16/03/2012 09:17 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Here's an example...

PNG was designed to be a patent unencumbered version of GIF (at the time, there were doubts over LZW compression used in GIF), so it was never designed to compress photo like images.
It's filters are very simple, designed to work well with simple graphical images (eg logos, simple cartoons etc), so you pretty much chose an example of what PNG is bad at doing.

Interestingly, the JPEG XR encoder in XnView at 100% quality seems to give larger sizes than PNG.

(This post was last modified: 16/03/2012 09:46 PM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)

(16/03/2012 09:40 PM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:  PNG was designed to be a patent unencumbered version of GIF (at the time, there were doubts over LZW compression used in GIF), so it was never designed to compress photo like images.

Isn't GIF like (8bit) 256color and stuff?  Then PNG and GIF are pretty different.

(16/03/2012 09:40 PM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:  JPEG XR isn't an open format?  JPEG 2000 never really took off.  I'm doubting Google's WebP will get anywhere either.

Errr... sort of?

From wiki...
|
V

Quote:Microsoft has patents on the technology in JPEG XR. A Microsoft representative stated in a January 2007 interview that in order to encourage the adoption and use of HD Photo, the specification is made available under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, which asserts that Microsoft allows implementation of the specification for free, and will not file suits on the patented technology for its implementation,[38] as reportedly stated by Josh Weisberg, director of Microsoft's Rich Media Group. As of 15 August 2010, Microsoft made the resulting JPEG XR standard available under its Community Promise.[39]

WebP has the support of Chrome and Opera already.  If Google can convince Firefox (not looking good right now), it might have a chance.

(This post was last modified: 17/03/2012 02:55 AM by Assassinator.)

(17/03/2012 02:48 AM)Assassinator Wrote:  Isn't GIF like (8bit) 256color and stuff?  Then PNG and GIF are pretty different.

GIF is limited to indexed colour.  PNG is a fairly flexible format, and can do more than just indexed colour.

(17/03/2012 02:48 AM)Assassinator Wrote:  WebP has the support of Chrome and Opera already.  If Google can convince Firefox (not looking good right now), it might have a chance.

Firefox supports WebM since v4, so I would guess WebP too.  I'm doubtful about IE and Safari.
Not like anyone's gonna change though.  Not a huge improvement over JPEG, and significantly more difficult to decode (completely ignoring support/compatibility here).

(17/03/2012 03:11 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:  Firefox supports WebM since v4, so I would guess WebP too.  I'm doubtful about IE and Safari.

Mozilla has actually been stiffly resisting the introduction of WebP.  Even when working patches were supplied, they were rejected.

Quote:After studying quality and performance characteristics of WebP, Mozilla decided last month not to support the format. The WebP feature request in Mozilla's bug tracker was resolved with the "WONFTIX" label and a number of community-supplied patches to enable the feature in Firefox were politely rejected.

"As the WebP image format exists currently, I won't accept a patch for it. If and when that changes, I'll happily re-evaluate my decision!" wrote Mozilla developer Joe Drew in a Bugzilla comment.

Mozilla's Jeff Muizelaar offered a more detailed technical explanation about the problems with WebP in a blog post. His well-articulated critique sheds light on the problems with Google's testing methodology, lays out the weaknesses in the WebP feature set, and explains Mozilla's broader philosophical objections against indiscriminately adding new image formats to Firefox.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/...picasa.ars

(17/03/2012 03:11 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:  Not like anyone's gonna change though.

Well, it's definitely not going to happen quickly, but at least there will be the option and possibility for change, however slow that may be.  Right now with just Chrome and Opera, there is no option, and no possibility.

I for one will use WebP over JPG.  Even though I also disagree in some of WebP's design methodologies (see http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541 ), it's still going to be a lot better than JPEG probably most of the time.

(This post was last modified: 17/03/2012 03:28 AM by Assassinator.)

(17/03/2012 06:14 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  Maybe in 10 years or so when images reencoded as video to save space is considered a commonplace practice, and lots of applications support loading .png.avi and .png.mkv files as pixmaps, I'll make the switch. until then, its an image format, and at the end of the day, my images are still lossless and support transparency, so I'm happy.

Damn you still miss-understood me even after I wrote...
|
V

Quote:Now I'm not suggesting that you should go compress all your images as video, that's beyond silly.  I'm just demonstrating that the technology behind PNG is outdated as fuck.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that PNG is using ancient technology that is outdated, and that there is a lot of room for improvement.  Ideally, sometime in the future, a new image format should be created using up to date technology.

(17/03/2012 06:14 AM)trademark91 Wrote:  .png.avi and .png.mkv

That's just me renaming stuff so that you know where it came from (source.png), and muxing the raw video (.264) into a format that you can actually play back (.mkv).

The videos are just there as examples of newer compression techniques (that is currently being used in video compression, but not yet in image compression) beating PNG.

(This post was last modified: 17/03/2012 07:41 PM by Assassinator.)