There is no reason to not use FLIF. It shits on everything out there...

There is no reason to not use FLIF. It shits on everything out there. We need to shill and encourage everyone to use this glorious format. It is your wet dream, trust me. Just imagine the amount of space you'll save with this magnificent format. It has been in development since 2015.

flif.info/

Just look at this video, and see for yourself. It will blow your mind away.
youtube.com/watch?v=_h5gC3EzlJg

Lossless compression
Lossy compression (encoder preprocessing option, format itself is lossless so no generation loss)
Greyscale, RGB, RGBA (also palette and color-bucket modes)
Color depth: up to 16 bits per channel (high bit depth)
Interlaced (default) or non-interlaced
Interlaced files can be decoded quickly at lower quality/resolution (“Responsive By Design”)
Progressive decoding of partially downloaded files
Animation support
Support for embedded ICC color profiles, Exif and XMP metadata
Rudimentary support to compress camera raw files (RGGB)
Encoding and decoding speeds are acceptable, but should be improved
Fallback web browser support via a JavaScript polyfill decoder (poly-flif)

14% smaller than lossless WebP,
22% smaller than lossless BPG,
33% smaller than brute-force crushed PNG files (using ZopfliPNG),
43% smaller than typical PNG files,
46% smaller than optimized Adam7-interlaced PNG files,
53% smaller than lossless JPEG 2000 compression,
74% smaller than lossless JPEG XR compression.

Attached: 1532075577774.png (645x445, 35K)

Other urls found in this thread:

aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/
wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/report.html
flif.info/animation.html
youtube.com/watch?v=ByH7RMsMxBY
github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF
github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF/commits/master
cnet.com/news/firefox-to-support-googles-webp-image-format-for-a-faster-web/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Filed under who gives a shit

>who gives a shit
then why did you post, you retarded ape

To trigger you

I'm sorry for your terminal autism

:^)

>12% savings
wow it's fucking nothing

46" savings isn't 12% savings

I think at this stage (webp) image file sizes just don't matter anymore
Videos are more important

Actually there is. AV1's being standardized by JPEG to become the next format.

file format designed for incel nerds with no sex life. I'll stick with jpeg.

I'm really curious who will come out on top for lossless image compression. AVIF or FLIF.
It would be a shame for FLIF to become obsolete before even getting a chance to establish itself.

What is AVIF? Is it a lossless image format?

delete this

AVIF is an image format based on AV1. See aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/
Imo it's still too early to really compare them, but here are some semi-recent results: wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/report.html

>want to send a picture to someone
>how do I open it user? windows just says it doesn't recognise the file type
>psssh... nothing personnel... kid

Attached: coldsteel.jpg (800x450, 52K)

just convert it to something old and send it to your brainlet friend

Can't you guys find some other avenue in which to be all hipster? Maybe fashion or something?
We all know you use that computer of yours mostly as a masturbation station.

I'm sorry for your terminal autism.

this was interesting
flif.info/animation.html

if game companies used flif, we would have games at a much lower file size and rendering would be so much faster and more efficient

youtube.com/watch?v=ByH7RMsMxBY

>much
>so much
>more
Bigger faster more better! I'm convinced

For real though how does this compare to recent Webp in lossly and lossless encoding? Unless it can beat pic related then there's no point in giving it attention.

Attached: drawing.png (1277x2249, 2.12M)

see the youtube videos

Which ones, I couldn't find any comparing flif to webp 1.0.0 (april 2018 version).

I need more information about that pic.

What was the source? 720p? 1080p? 480p? There is NO FUCKING WAY to get PNG and JPG100% to the same exact quality. There just isn't a way.

Dunno, it was just something some user posted a while ago. Here's a better (I think) comparison with the 0.5.0 webp version.

Attached: 4knQWjN.jpg (1011x3032, 400K)

>benchmarks on photographs
>benchmarks on medical images
>benchmarks on geographical maps
>no benchmaps on anime girls
Failed marketing.

Ops I didn't mean quality, I meant file size. PNG is always higher than JPG100

Not always, PNG can sometimes match or surpass JPG100 depending how much it can compress in the image. Rarely happens though.

I've never seen that. Do you have any examples? I've crushed over millions of PNG files to see if I can match the size of a JPG100 file, but it never happens

I remember there was also a comparison tool made by that guy. No, not the shitty one from xiph, the newer one where you could compare side by side av1f and fluffy pictures.

>There is no reason to not use FLIF.

Submarine patents

>14% smaller than lossless WebP
Well no fucking duh, you're not even using webp 0.5.0 which wasn't even that great to begin with. Modern webp probably matches or surpasses flif.

>you're not even using webp 0.5.0
how do u know

Because that was the same thing flif touted when it tested against webp 0.4.4 made back in 2015. Either they still used 0.4.4 or webp hasn't improved shit (very unlikely given the commits on github page).

Why use this when webp has universally been accepted by the web (except aplel).

go back to /v/ you winfag.

jpeg is garbage, and their group is too.

there's a javascript library that makes every browser view it fine and when saved it turns into png or jpeg
retard

>It shits on everything out there.
except pngquant btfo it for text caps

Not him but latest github release is like 2 years ago. How can we take flif seriously when the flif devs won't? Seems like another daala to me.

That's ass backwards as fuck. Is native support by ANY browsers even a possibility?

>pngquant is a command-line utility and a library for lossy compression of PNG images
>a library for lossy compression of PNG images
>lossy compression of PNG images
>lossy compression
>of PNG images
This should be a felony.

Attached: 25d.jpg (951x972, 104K)

>posts a .png

>Not him but latest github release is like 2 years ago.
wtf, so has it been canned or what? That's an awful long time between releases.

Attached: 1537234132679.png (900x1000, 253K)

>ass backwards
no it isn't. they have support regardless of in browser support. that's how you need to support shit these days until it's adopted.
Last updates were a few days ago.. and last serious updates were a few months ago.
github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF

>2 years ago
where are you getting this from? last commit was 4 days ago

Attached: 1514842850499.png (343x54, 3K)

github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF/commits/master
>days ago

Where the fuck is the latest executable CLI?

>use flif!
LOL
Jow Forums cant even use vp9 webm

Attached: Heavensgatelogo.jpg (246x202, 9K)

Or even webp. I would have honestly been content with at least just that.

webp is dead project, many things are better.

But that's because Chinkmoot ran a Youtube contest. How do you expect the owner of Jow Forums to implement something that will benefit everyone when he's too busy with a Youtube contest?

Then why do 75% of browsers support it? Even the SJW browser will soon support it.

cnet.com/news/firefox-to-support-googles-webp-image-format-for-a-faster-web/

Gimp natively supports encoding/decoding of it too along with a ton of other software.

Attached: 1537238112178.jpg (321x432, 34K)

It's going to be replaced, by google, with the av1 based formats, redditor.
that's good, they should support it as well as a bunch of other image formats. apng etc should have been picked up on chrom*

>It's going to be replaced, by google, with the av1 based formats, redditor.
No shit but how is webp dead when there's tons of native browser/software support for it that's currently growing?

>apng etc should have been picked up on chrom*
Webp has higher compression than apng now, so there's literally no reason to. The only thing that made apng somewhat enticing was faster decoding than webp (no longer a problem).

Webp is getting replaced?

By AVIF in god knows how long. It took webp almost a decade to reach acceptable compression efficiency and good decoding/encoding performance. AV1 (the codec it's based on) isn't even viable for 480p video much less 4K and 8K it aims to compete with HEVC with due to severe decoding/encoding performance issues. Maybe 2030 the earliest imho.

>Support for embedded ICC color profiles
isn't that pretty stupid?

why

>There is no reason to not use FLIF
No browser supports it.

/thread

How about we change that

>just shimmy this stupid javascript turd in there
How about, no?

Attached: 1524648892350.jpg (733x464, 102K)

How much does Microsoft pay you

I haven't used microsoft products since xp support ended.

t. debianfag

Web assembly.

>we

Also FLIF is still in early alpha stage and not even ready yet. The last stable build is almost 2 years ago. For such a new project to have this kind of delay means its nearly a dead project with no way to know if the format will even be standardized.

>AV1 (the codec it's based on) isn't even viable for 480p video much less 4K and 8K it aims to compete with HEVC with due to severe decoding/encoding performance issues.
You're using the reference encoder, of course it's slow.

Yes, this is a real bummer. The most recent comparisons I know of only use v0.6.1 (the charts on FLIF's website even use v0.5).

Take a look at this picture. Originally 386,223 bytes. Optimized (via ETC) you can bring it down to 31,191 bytes (which even beats brute forced FLIF at 60,370 bytes). JPG converted via ImageMagick (-quality 100) prodcues a file with 1,625,766 bytes. Converted with -quality 1 it's still 135,339 bytes.

If you have pictures with little to no gradients, chances are that at least optimized PNG will beat any decent looking JPG. In this case it beats it entirely.

Attached: screenshot.png (1324x1328, 377K)

If the size is smaller that means image data need to be unpacked before using, and that may be slower depending on how fast your PC is, that additional power needed for unpacking/decoding is why old pc games used .bmp+.wav combination instead of someting compressed