←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
625 points bluedel | 1 comments | 24 Jun 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
LeoPanthera ◴[25 Jun 25 05:06 UTC] No.44373778[source]▶
> I know you all immediately wondered, better compression?. We're already working on that.

This worries me. Because presumably, changing the compression algorithm will break backwards compatibility, which means we'll start to see "png" files that aren't actually png files.

It'll be like USB-C but for images.

replies(11): >>44373790 #>>44373796 #>>44373928 #>>44373937 #>>44374139 #>>44374147 #>>44374842 #>>44375132 #>>44375261 #>>44375615 #>>44380021 #
Lerc ◴[25 Jun 25 05:35 UTC] No.44373928[source]▶
It has fields to say what compression is used. Adding another compression form should be handled by existing software as recognizing it as a valid PNG that they can't decompress.

The PNG format is specifically designed to allow software to read the parts they can understand and to leave the parts they cannot. Having an extensible format and electing never to extend it seems pointless.

replies(7): >>44374018 #>>44374025 #>>44374290 #>>44374346 #>>44374473 #>>44374501 #>>44374528 #
shiomiru ◴[25 Jun 25 07:23 UTC] No.44374501[source]▶
The difference between valid PNG you can't decompress and invalid PNG is fairly irrelevant when your aim is to get an image onto the screen.

And considering we already have plenty of more advanced competing lossless formats, I really don't see why "feed a BMP to deflate" needs a new, incompatible spin in 2025.

replies(2): >>44374624 #>>44375023 #
1. fc417fc802 ◴[25 Jun 25 07:42 UTC] No.44374624[source]▶
> plenty of more advanced competing lossless formats

Other than JXL which still has somewhat spotty support in older software? TIFF comes to mind but AFAIK its size tends to be worse than PNG. Edit: Oh right OpenEXR as well. How widespread is support for that in common end user image viewer software though?