WAIT

I don't know about FLIF but I played FILF before and it's pretty neat. Not as good as Milfy City but I still enjoy it

Because it's already dead. The devs moved on to FUIF. Or was that swallowed by the recent JPEG XL as well?
It gets confusing when nobody sticks to their new format for more than a year.

Mainly the disadvantages it inherited from VP8 (e.g. forced chroma subsampling) and the fact that they combined two completely unrelated compression algorithms in one format.

FUIF basically is JPEG XL. It wasn't even intended as a full format and didn't have a stable (forward-compatible) release.

FLIF is alien technology from the future. Everybody should use it. There is no reason not to use it.
PNG is an absolute joke at this point.

There is even a lossy prefilter which easily beats JPG.

> FLIF is based on MANIAC compression (Meta-Adaptive Near-zero Integer Arithmetic Coding). It is a variant of CABAC (context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding), where instead of using a multi-dimensional array of quantized local image information, the contexts are nodes of decision trees which are dynamically learned at encode time

Yeah. That's what I thought. Screw those CABAC niggers.

>Generation loss
>8 bit
>Outperformed by FLIF

I see. Do we know why they decided to release FUIF's source code then?

Presumably to show it off.

>"FREE"
Nothing is free you dumb commies

FLIF is dead, guys. Give it up.

Man, that sounds pretty compute-intensive for an image format.
Why not just use png?

Commies live on your head rent free

>on your head
Like the blood-sucking parasites they are.

If by "dead" you mean finalized and stable.
Last commit was a year ago.

>finalized and stable
Why do I get the feeling that you don't use FLIF extensively yourself and only spout what you read on Jow Forums?
You're trying to tell me that v0.3 is supposed to be a final release? That broken FLIF transcoding (either resulting in larger files or corrupted images) is a feature? That not being able to tell at all which effort level will produce the smallest file is good design? That the inability to efficiently compress simple text like pic related (even being larger than losslessly optimized PNG and getting completely dominated by lossless WebP) is on purpose?
And don't even get me started on the en-/decoder performance speed-wise.

Attached: text.png (1910x2020, 119K)

These are problems with the implementation.
The interface is stable. The technology is sound.

>The technology is sound.
Doesn't matter as long as no one puts work into a proper implementation. There are certainly a lot of good ideas behind FLIF and they will live on in newer formats, but FLIF itself is dead.

>Error code: 5 (BAD_DIMENSION: Bad picture dimension. Maximum width and height allowed is 16383 pixels.)