←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
616 points bluedel | 1 comments | 24 Jun 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.263s | source
Show context
poisonborz ◴[25 Jun 25 10:11 UTC] No.44375523[source]▶
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about".

Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace.

Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.

replies(10): >>44375537 #>>44375557 #>>44375998 #>>44376442 #>>44376512 #>>44376957 #>>44376999 #>>44377083 #>>44377151 #>>44380128 #
dev_l1x_be ◴[25 Jun 25 13:26 UTC] No.44377083[source]▶
> Look at poor webp

What about it?

"Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality levels"

This literally saves houndred of thousand of cost, bandwith, electricity every month on the internet. In fact, I strongly belive that this is one of the greatest contributions from Google to society just like ZSTD from Facebook.

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study

replies(4): >>44377217 #>>44378458 #>>44383750 #>>44386150 #
1. account42 ◴[26 Jun 25 11:01 UTC] No.44386150[source]▶
> equivalent quality levels

Therein lies the lie.

Image and video compression comparisons are like statistics with the right corpus and evaluation criteria you can should whatever narrative you want to push.