←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
616 points bluedel | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
qwertox ◴[] No.44373847[source]
> Officially supports Exif data

Probably the best news here. While you already can write custom data into a header, having Exif is good.

BTW: Does Exif have a magnetometer (rotation) and acceleration (gravity) field? I often wonder about why Google isn't saving this information in the images which the camera app saves. It could help so much with post-processing, like with leveling the horizon or creating panoramas.

replies(7): >>44373955 #>>44373957 #>>44373987 #>>44375555 #>>44376496 #>>44382700 #>>44384608 #
Aardwolf ◴[] No.44373955[source]
Exif can also cause confusion for how to render the image: should its rotation be applied or not?

Old decoders and new decoders now could render an image with exif rotation differently since it's an optional chunk that can be ignored, and even for new decoders, the spec lists no decoder recommendations for how to use the exif rotation

It does say "It is recommended that unless a decoder has independent knowledge of the validity of the Exif data, the data should be considered to be of historical value only.", so hopefully the rotation will not be used by renderers, but it's only a vague recommendation, there's no strict "don't rotate the image" which would be the only backwards compatible way

With jpeg's exif, there have also been bugs with the rotation being applied twice, e.g. desktop environment and underlying library both doing it independently

replies(1): >>44374585 #
DidYaWipe ◴[] No.44374585[source]
The stupid thing is that any device with an orientation sensor is still writing images the wrong way and then setting a flag, expecting every viewing application to rotate the image.

The camera knows which way it's oriented, so it should just write the pixels out in the correct order. Write the upper-left pixel first. Then the next one. And so on. WTF.

replies(4): >>44374826 #>>44375663 #>>44376252 #>>44378679 #
klabb3 ◴[] No.44376252[source]
TIL, and hard agree (on face value). I’ve been struck by this with arbitrary rotation of images depending on application, very annoying.

What are the arguments for this? It would seem easier for everyone to rotate and then store exif for the original rotation if necessary.

replies(1): >>44376856 #
kllrnohj ◴[] No.44376856[source]
> What are the arguments for this? It would seem easier for everyone to rotate and then store exif for the original rotation if necessary.

Performance. Rotation during rendering is often free, whereas the camera would need an intermediate buffer + copy if it's unable to change the way it samples from the sensor itself.

replies(2): >>44376911 #>>44382757 #
1. DidYaWipe ◴[] No.44382757[source]
Given that rotation sensors have been standard equipment on most cameras (AKA phones) for many years now, I would expect pixel-reordering to be built into supporting ASICs and to impose negligible performance penalties.