But is it backwards compatible with an old version that can't be updated?

It's not irrelevant, it's that you don't actually know if it's true or not, so it's not a valuable contribution.

If you started your comment by saying "This is something I completely made up and may or may not be correct" and then posted the same thing, you should expect the same result.

Likely, you'll see the first frame only on older software. Encoding animation in a dedicated animation chunk and using the base spec for the first keyframe sounds like the sane thing to do, so they likely did that.

I'm not going to look into it now, because I would then have to implement it.

I did check some of the references.

What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn't say it's AI.

Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?

As long as I'm transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it's not some kind of hallucination...

There shouldn't be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.

Also it's not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It's just a technical question that I had (and still doesn't) that doesn't mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.

That's why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.

Sometime I really wonder if I'm the only one supposed to check my data? Aren't everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it's worth the time and effort?

Basically, downvoting here is choosing "no information" rather than "information I have to verify because it's AI generated".

Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use "sometimes" or just "on some comments".

Now if anyone don't mind explaining, PNG vs JXL?

I don't know. If the poster couldn't be bothered to fact-check, why would I? It is just safer to assume that it can be misinformation.

That depends. Something like HDR should be able to fall back to non-HDR since it largely just adds data, so if the format specifies that extra information is ignored, there's a chance it works fine.

JXL is badly supported but it does offer lossless encoding in a more flexible and much more efficient way than png does

Basically jxl could theoretically replace png, jpg, and also exr.

I'm not sure you can turn an hdr image into a regular one just by snipping it down to 8 bits per channel and discarding the rest.

I mean it would work but I'm not certain you'll get the best results.

it would work

And that's probably enough. I don't know enough about HDR to know if it would look anything like the artist imagined, but as long as it's close enough, it's fine if it's not optimal. Having things completely break is far less than ideal.

You realize that if we wanted to see an AI LLM response, we'd ask an AI LLM ourselves.
What you're doing is akin to :

Hey guys, I've asked google if the new png is backward compatible, and here are the first links it gave me, hope this helps : [list 200 links]

I understand that. It's the downvoting of the clearly marked as AI LLM response. Is it detrimental to the conversation here to have that? Is it better to share nothing rather than this LLM output?

Was this thread better without it?

Is complete ignorance of the PNG compatibility preferable to reading this AI output and pondering how true is it?

[list 200 links]

Now I think this conversation is getting just rude for no reason.
I think the AI output was definitely not the "I'm lucky" result of a Google search and the fact that you choose that metaphor is in bad faith.

You'd probably get some colours that end up being quite off target. But you'll get an image to display. So in the end it depends on how much "not optimal" you're ready to accept.

I did check some of the references.

What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn't say it's AI.

Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?

As long as I'm transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it's not some kind of hallucination...

There shouldn't be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.

Also it's not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It's just a technical question that I had (and still doesn't) that doesn't mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.

That's why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.

Sometime I really wonder if I'm the only one supposed to check my data? Aren't everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it's worth the time and effort?

Basically, downvoting here is choosing "no information" rather than "information I have to verify because it's AI generated".

Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use "sometimes" or just "on some comments".

Goodbye gif hello png?

Is it pronounced png or png?

I did check some of the references.

What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn't say it's AI.

Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?

As long as I'm transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it's not some kind of hallucination...

There shouldn't be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.

Also it's not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It's just a technical question that I had (and still doesn't) that doesn't mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.

That's why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.

Sometime I really wonder if I'm the only one supposed to check my data? Aren't everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it's worth the time and effort?

Basically, downvoting here is choosing "no information" rather than "information I have to verify because it's AI generated".

Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use "sometimes" or just "on some comments".