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.
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.
>who gives a shit then why did you post, you retarded ape
Blake Bennett
To trigger you
Logan Perez
I'm sorry for your terminal autism
Alexander Ramirez
:^)
Luke Morgan
>12% savings wow it's fucking nothing
Lincoln Martin
46" savings isn't 12% savings
Brayden Jenkins
I think at this stage (webp) image file sizes just don't matter anymore Videos are more important
Zachary Foster
Actually there is. AV1's being standardized by JPEG to become the next format.
Michael Young
file format designed for incel nerds with no sex life. I'll stick with jpeg.
David Baker
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.
just convert it to something old and send it to your brainlet friend
Eli Campbell
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.
>much >so much >more Bigger faster more better! I'm convinced
Owen Ramirez
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.
>benchmarks on photographs >benchmarks on medical images >benchmarks on geographical maps >no benchmaps on anime girls Failed marketing.
Parker Wood
Ops I didn't mean quality, I meant file size. PNG is always higher than JPG100
Mason Myers
Not always, PNG can sometimes match or surpass JPG100 depending how much it can compress in the image. Rarely happens though.
Evan Anderson
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
Matthew Jones
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.
Isaiah Campbell
>There is no reason to not use FLIF.
Submarine patents
Liam Cooper
>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.
Jacob Green
>you're not even using webp 0.5.0 how do u know
Tyler Brooks
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).
Ethan Foster
Why use this when webp has universally been accepted by the web (except aplel).
Bentley Ortiz
go back to /v/ you winfag.
Austin Rivera
jpeg is garbage, and their group is too.
Michael Adams
there's a javascript library that makes every browser view it fine and when saved it turns into png or jpeg retard
Xavier Campbell
>It shits on everything out there. except pngquant btfo it for text caps
Lincoln Evans
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?
Isaac Green
>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.
>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
Lincoln Peterson
>2 years ago where are you getting this from? last commit was 4 days ago
Or even webp. I would have honestly been content with at least just that.
Joseph Rogers
webp is dead project, many things are better.
Colton Miller
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?
Angel Davis
Then why do 75% of browsers support it? Even the SJW browser will soon support it.
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*
Robert Campbell
>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).
Asher Williams
Webp is getting replaced?
John Jones
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.
Nathan Campbell
>Support for embedded ICC color profiles isn't that pretty stupid?
Jeremiah Thompson
why
Jaxson Reyes
>There is no reason to not use FLIF No browser supports it.
/thread
Hunter Martinez
How about we change that
Luis Watson
>just shimmy this stupid javascript turd in there How about, no?
I haven't used microsoft products since xp support ended.
t. debianfag
Jonathan Robinson
Web assembly.
Carter Cooper
>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.
Andrew Thomas
>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.
Nathaniel Baker
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).
Kayden Nelson
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.
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