4 ms·

I love that the flif format is totally free, which seems to be the main painpoint here with BPG. However: 1) It doesn't seem very compelling without lossy comp

I love that the flif format is totally free, which seems to be the main painpoint here with BPG. However: 1) It doesn't seem very compelling without lossy compression. Moreover, the recommended way to get a lossy version is to use `dd` on a flif file... 2) Even in the FLIF examples, BPG always looks the best: http://flif.info/example.html http://flif.info/example.html strikingly so. This makes me think that, even if using HEVC is a bad idea, reusing video codecs might be a rich source of innovation for image compression.

pgeorgi 11y ago
> reusing video codecs might be a rich source of innovation for image compression As in WebP?
legulere 11y ago
It's not totally free. It's bound to the GPLv3 and thus has no chance of being included into any standard browser.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Thats the code's licence, not the file format's, so they'd only need to write a decoder (or ask that the decoder be re-licensed).
  - legulere 11y ago
    There's no specification, so you would have to do a clean room reimplementation.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Now that all the browser makers (except Apple) are on board for a royalty free video codec based on VP10/Daala/Thor tech, I would be surprised if they didn't re-use the same tech and patents to create a next-gen web image format.