←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
614 points bluedel | 4 comments | 24 Jun 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.004s | source
Show context
qwertfisch ◴[25 Jun 25 12:22 UTC] No.44376468[source]▶
Seems a bit too late? And also, JPEG XL supports all the features and uses already advanced compression (finite-state entropy, like ZStandard). It offers lossy and lossless compression, animated pictures, HDR, EXIF etc.

There is just no need for a PNG update, just adopt JPEG XL.

replies(5): >>44376756 #>>44377176 #>>44378892 #>>44379025 #>>44384951 #
illiac786 ◴[25 Jun 25 13:35 UTC] No.44377176[source]▶
I really don’t get it. Why, but why? It’s already confusing as hell, why create yet another standard (variant) with no unique selling point?
replies(1): >>44378143 #
pmarreck ◴[25 Jun 25 15:00 UTC] No.44378143[source]▶
JPEG XL is not a "variant", it is a completely new algorithm that is also fully backwards-compatible with every single JPEG already out there, of which there are probably billions at this point.

It also has pretty much every feature desired in an image standard. It is future-proofed.

You can losslessly re-compress a JPEG into a JPEG-XL file and gain space.

It is a worthy successor (while also being vastly superior to) JPEG.

replies(3): >>44378163 #>>44378359 #>>44378429 #
1. dylan604 ◴[25 Jun 25 15:28 UTC] No.44378429{3}[source]▶
> You can losslessly re-compress a JPEG into a JPEG-XL file and gain space.

Is that gained space enough to account for the fact you now have 2 files? Sure, you can delete the original jpg on the local system, but are you going to purge your entire set of backups?

replies(2): >>44378510 #>>44385844 #
2. illiac786 ◴[25 Jun 25 15:35 UTC] No.44378510[source]▶
if you do not want to delete the original jpeg, there is no point in converting them to jpeg xl I would say.

Unless serving jxl and saving bandwidth, while increasing your total storage, is worth it to you.

3. account42 ◴[26 Jun 25 10:02 UTC] No.44385844[source]▶
Yes the whole point of lossless re-compression is that you do not need to keep the original JPEGs. Of course you don't need to "purge" backups, just let them rotate out normally.

Also backup storage is usually cheaper than something that needs to have fast access speeds.

replies(1): >>44388781 #
4. dylan604 ◴[26 Jun 25 16:13 UTC] No.44388781[source]▶
For people that shoot digital cameras saving as JPEG, it will a very cocky suggestion to tell them to toss out their camera original files!

You'll know JPEG-XL if real when camera manufactures allow for XL acquisition instead of legacy JPEG only.