ITT: Pros and Cons of Image Types

ITT: Pros and Cons of Image Types
I'll start

PNG
Pros: good for getting shit done in a lossless fashion, supports transparency and a wide range of colors, widely supported
Cons: doesn't support file tags/metadata information, can't be animated like GIF, can't be scaled like an SVG without losing quality

JPG/JPEG
fuck you

GIF
Pros: supports animations, low file-size
Cons: typically shit quality, very slow loading, lacks color support, very lossy

Other urls found in this thread:

notes.tweakblogs.net/blog/8712/high-color-gif-images.html
wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/report.html
waifu2x.udp.jp/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What's the point of this thread?
Every image type has a use depending on need and implementation.

You aren't in any position to be talking about this if you think JPG serves no purpose.

Obviously to help kill prune the board with a very very worthwhile thread.

APNG for animation.
JPEG-XR and JPEG2K not standardized.
WEBP is really new.
FLIF if you really are savage.

I use jpeg for everything

...

I will forever hate Cuckzilla for pushing that and killing the momentum MNG had.

PNGs a pretty cool guy is lossless and doesnt afraid of nothing

...

I can use IPTC with PNGs in ACDSee

That, and gaslighting the MNG developers until they burned out. [email protected]/* */ needs to die in a fucking fire.

Isn't that Google's new standard with a similar idea to WEBMs? As in low filesize and 100% compatibility with any browser that supports HTML5?

WEBMs are great, just waiting on the major social media giants to adopt it so it becomes more widespread.

...

It's not actually Google's, they just shill for it a lot and funded some of it. They use it on YouTube to save bandwidth.
It's owned by some random group of devs who maintain it, and it's FOSS.

Sorry, I mean Google does that with both WEBP and WEBM. Not just WEBP.

Fuck the WEB* and HTML5, tbh.

BPG when?

kektronics

Remind the audience, what are the three competing patent cartels currently charging for H.265 licensing?

jpg is great.

so great no one wants to replace it.

it's png and gif that are the fossils.

They already have.

Twitter and I think Facebook convert any gif you upload into a video file.

...

you can add private ancillary chunks for whatever, but there are applications that might strip them if they do not recognize them
nice argument, yet it's the non-patented format that offers the best compression/quality ratio when dealing with lots of colors, until webp gets supported by every browser
either this is bait or you have no idea what you are talking about
gif is lossless just like png

Twitter supported webm uploads and then dropped it because only like 3% of people used them. All their video content is mp4.

Fractal format adoption when?

Also, the need to use separate formats for different purposes (GIF for flat color, JPEG for photographic, etc.) is annoying. An example of the right way to do it is DJvu, which automatically chops out photographic, illustrated, and textual content, compressing each in its optimal (bitmap, autovectorized, or OCR text) format and compositing them.

the people who makes these types of images should go back to /g/

If the image has only very few colors use png, will result in smaller size than jpg.
If image is photo use jpg, because smaller size
If it should move, use webm but probably same as 1. point, if less colors i assume gif will be smaller.

Wish i where smart enough to better understand this.
Put data in image seems easier in jpg and gif than in png.
Today still fascinated about that imgur-js-botnet few years ago, still don't really understand it.

farbfeld
pros:
Simple to understand and easy to work with, 16-bits per channel, when compressed sizes are comparable to PNG.
cons:
sRGB is worst color space, 4 channels are not enough in some specific circumstances, it has practically no support anywhere outside of few suckless tools.

since when?


however, with adequate compressor (mozjpeg) almost nothing beats it on photo content

this is completely out of place

this is horse shit


OP, go fuck yourself. and next time, do some fucking research before shitposting.

however the end result often looks like poop

There's not really much to understand
PNGs are divided into chunks, that is, pieces which have a header with some metadata and then the interesting informations, followed by a checksum for integrity checks
For example, the actual image is stored in the IDAT chunk, which is made of some metadata (I forgot what) and then a long array of bytes, indicating the (compressed) image
The format allows users to add custom chunks which can contain anything, so they can interchange informations between two programs that knows that there is this custom chunk
This way you can add "sub-images", which is what APNG does (each animation frame is a custom data chunk), or you can add EXIF-like informations, or even a video if you feel inclined

Animated PNG supports lossless animations with more features and consistently smaller file size than GIF. GIF really has become deprecated.

Except all the new video codec I-frames?

For example?
I heard of only one, and it's patent encumbered.
And others are only marginally better

As restricted as the pool of common visual CODECs is, the fact that JPEG is still in common use is an embarrassment, considering that JPEG's functional design is a direct subset of modern CODECs like h.265 & VP9.

What's the point about talking about anything ever? We should just prevent new threads and have one cyclical thread about browsers since that's all we ever talk about. Good thinking user. kys


PNG is great for most things and have has a number of great lossless compression tools like pngcrush and pngout. Sometimes though with palettes images, it isn't the best format.

GIFs are (currently) the best if you need animation. They are good if you need a legacy format that is supported everywhere. In a few rare cases, GIFs can get better compression than PNGs.

By the way, GIF doesn't actually lack color support, there is a way to load a GIF with more than 256 colors: notes.tweakblogs.net/blog/8712/high-color-gif-images.html

JPGs are a dead format now. There has not been a need for lossy image compression since 2005/2006 since internet speeds have greatly increased.

and all of them lose to WEBP(lossless), both in size and compression speed, on all kinds of images


false implication

Does your PDF use state of the art JPEG compressor (mozjpeg 3.x) for comparisons?

No, I selected it primarily to emphasize the fact that all of JPEG's features are included inside the DCT-based CODECs that have succeeded it since the H.261-era video CODECs JPEG was derived from, in addition to far more sophisticated features added since then, meaning anything that can be done before (better encoder) or after (better postprocessing) to enhance JPEG's performance applies even moreso to modern DCT CODECs.

Here is a newer comparison with MozJPEG 3.1 getting trampled:
wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/report.html

No.

And the problem with the more-than-8-bit-colors trick is you lose compression.

No raster image format can. What is this shitty thread?

Why? Why would you need a lossy jpg in 2017?

Didn't know that. I don't really dick around with video. Is this supported right across the board now, or is it just a few select browsers?


I see. I wasn't aware support for animated PNGs was actually here. Neat.

I didn't say it was perfect, just that it was possible. I guess I should have made that clearer.

To be fair, while it's true that extrapolated enlargement can be applied to bitmaps in any format, the design of wavelet and fractal compression can make this much easier to implement and less computationally demanding.

There is also autovectorization, of course, which IMHO should render PNG/GIF irrelevant.

It's actually not something special you need to add into a website to support it. Every image board besides 4chan has always allowed APNG uploads with PNG--it's just that fuckwad Moot decided specifically to detect and disallow them.

Random aside, is there a free, good FOSS image resampler out there? Something that can take like an 800x600 image and blow it up really nicely like your example? Fuck paying Adobe a goddamn dime for Creative Cloud online bullshit.

waifu2x.udp.jp/

Damn, that's impressive. Anything like that offline, maybe that would support large batches of photos to churn through over time?

There's a link to their github repo which has instructions for an offline tool. Requires an nVidia GPU though for the ConvNet stuff.

JPG's should only be used in images with lots of colour and detail such as irl photographs but PNG's are useful for images without much detail for a smaller filesize than even JPG. People who shit on JPG's are just homosensuals.

Images related, best file types for what they are.