PNG has been updated for the first time in 22 years — new spec supports HDR and animation
Technology
105
Beiträge
68
Kommentatoren
3
Aufrufe
-
Animated PNG has been trying to be an extension to the PNG spec for 20+ years.
Right there's actually like a select few applications that support it which is cool, but so many get confused when they see an apng file with frames.
-
Yeah in browser. I should probably open an issue ticket if nobody else noticed yet.
Relevant issue: https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/665
tl;dr - it's an issue with the pillow image library in python. It's on our radar though. I got posts working, but you have to click through, the thumbnail still isn't animated.
-
How does this compare to nvidia JXR hdr screenshots ?
This has a chance of being widely adopted? Lol
-
Relevant issue: https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/665
tl;dr - it's an issue with the pillow image library in python. It's on our radar though. I got posts working, but you have to click through, the thumbnail still isn't animated.
Oh good looks like you're on it already nice! The only other thing I noticed missing moving from Lemmy was sorting Top by "x" amount of time, but I see there's an open issue for that as well already. Nothing for me to do lol.
-
PNG, like "PNG"
No, that sounds silly. It must be PNG. You really should enunciate the PNG.
-
Oh good looks like you're on it already nice! The only other thing I noticed missing moving from Lemmy was sorting Top by "x" amount of time, but I see there's an open issue for that as well already. Nothing for me to do lol.
Still lots of things to do
Lemmy has been at it for years at this point while piefed only started up a bit over a year ago I think? In any case, I have only been a contributor for maybe a couple weeks, so lots of catching up to do!
-
If you prefer to know nothing about PNG compatibility rather than something that might be true about PNG. That's fine but definitely not my approach.
Also, as I said to another commenter. Critical thinking is not some tool you decide to use on some comments and not others. An AI answer on some topics is actually more likely to be correct than an answer by a human being. And it's not some stuff I was told by an AI guru it's what researchers are evaluating in many universities. Ask an human to complete various tasks and then ask the AI model and compare scientifically the data. And it turns out there is task where the AI outperforms the human pretty much all the time.
YET on this particular task the assumption is that it's bullshit and it's just downvoted. Now I would have posted the same data myself and for some reason I would not see a single downvote. The same data represented differently completely change the likelihood of it being accurate. Even though at the end of the day you shouldn't trust blindly neither a comment from an human or an AI output.
Honestly, I'm saddened to see people already rejecting completely the technology instead of trying to understand what it's good at and what it's bad at and most importantly experiencing it themselves.
I wanted to know what was generative AI worth so I read about it and tried it locally with open source software. Now I know how to spot images that are AI generated, I know what's difficult for this tech and what is not. I think that's a much healthier attitude than blindly rejecting any and all AI outputs.
You put way too much trust in AI. AI is seldom right. It is however very good at sounding like it knows what it's talking about. It's like a conservative podcaster.
-
Interestingly, I downloaded GNOME's pride month wallpaper to see what it looked like, and the files were JXL. Never seen them in the wild before that
Some parts of the open source world probably still desperately try to make JXL happen. This is understandable, considering its potential. Shame this wouldn't work.
-
Some parts of the open source world probably still desperately try to make JXL happen. This is understandable, considering its potential. Shame this wouldn't work.
Why are they trying to make it happen, and why it no work? Is JXL better than PNG? Maybe I need to do some research to better learn the difference
-
This post did not contain any content.
They should have let it die because nearly everything else is nowadays somehow better:
-
They should have let it die because nearly everything else is nowadays somehow better:
I absolutely hate WebP. Worst format ever.
-
They should have let it die because nearly everything else is nowadays somehow better:
What are u saying bro, itz still my go to option for transparency saves!, I don't exactly know the details of the update but I am happy they are showing it some love
-
They should have let it die because nearly everything else is nowadays somehow better:
Maybe I'm just a newb, but it still looks like PNG is the goto to ensure lossless image storage.
Everything else on that list that is "better" does/can do lossy compression. I'm not sure how to force apps to use lossless compression, so to me, all those lossy-capable formats are a drawback.
-
They should have let it die because nearly everything else is nowadays somehow better:
did you read your own source before posting this comment?
-
did you read your own source before posting this comment?
Yes? Did you?
Example:
AVIF
AVIF is an image format developed by the Alliance for Open Media. AVIF was designed by the foundation to make up for the shortcomings of other image codecs, including PNG, GIF, and WebP.
AVIF is generally smaller in size than both WebP and PNG. AVIF supports animation while PNG does not.
-
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.I'll spell out for you why I feel these two things are the same. You're welcome to disagree, but maybe it will give you some pointers as to why a lot of people are annoyed by these LLM copy-pasta.
First, a note for your ego : Remember, we don't know you! You might have read through the whole thing that the LLM generated, and then cross-referenced the sources it gave you and then found some more, and you established the veracity of what it told you. OR you might have not bothered and just copy-pasted it for the clout, I guess, which is what the majority of LLM users do when publishing these answers. Ask for some explanations on how to solve a problem to a student who let a LLM give them the answer to an assignment instead of doing the work, if you need proof. 9/10 won't be able to, because they didn't bother to understand it - and I'm being generous in my statistics, in my experience.
There's also a lot of research that hints that the long term effect of using this tool in that way are deleterious to your critical thinking skills.
We don't know you, so, chances are you're in the lot of the majority, as far as we're concerned.Then, given that you probably didn't put much effort into this text (as far as we can tell), there is an imbalance of effort required for us to look through it critically. Why the fuck would we put in the effort, if you most likely were not keen in putting so much in yourself? That's kinda disrespectful, and egotistical. And also why I feel I am justified to assume that ctrl+c/ctrl+v an LLM output directly is tantamount to copy pasting a list of link from google. If you went through the trouble of validating the LLM output, how about just writing with your own word what you just realized / learned / validated? You can even dictate with tons of FOSS software nowadays if you're unable to type!
So that's what I have for now, food for your thoughts I hope. I'm sure I could find more reasons, but I'm going to go do something fun instead.
-
I absolutely hate WebP. Worst format ever.
What's wrong with webp? It support animation, lossless compression, lossy compression and transparency. Animation has a smaller size than gif.
-
Goodbye gif hello png?
gif almost got replaced by mp4 anyway during the early imgur era
-
What's wrong with webp? It support animation, lossless compression, lossy compression and transparency. Animation has a smaller size than gif.
I hate that you can’t right click copy images, it always wants to share as a link. Plus some other issues when sharing, but it’s just such a pain in the ass.
-
Why are they trying to make it happen, and why it no work? Is JXL better than PNG? Maybe I need to do some research to better learn the difference
JXL can do lossy images (like JPEG) and lossless ones (like PNG), and on average it'll produce smaller file sizes than both (While beating JPEG quality wise). The killer feature is that it can do lossless recompression of existing JPEG files and shave off about 20% of the file size, and it's reversible so you can turn those JXL files back into JPEG images for existing software.
The downside is that it was created by Google Research (among others), but the Chrome team made AVIF instead and decided that's what they'd support and nothing else.
At least Safari supports it.
