4 ms·
Pretty amazing! Particularly nice is that an alpha channel and animation are also possible. One critical sidenode: it seems FLIF is still not as good as JPEG w
by kutkloon7 11y ago
Pretty amazing! Particularly nice is that an alpha channel and animation are also possible.
One critical sidenode: it seems FLIF is still not as good as JPEG when used as lossy compression (this is something the benchmarks do not show well).
For example, go to http://uprootlabs.github.io/poly-flif/ http://uprootlabs.github.io/poly-flif/, choose the monkey image, choose 'comparing with same size JPG', and set truncation to 60% or more.
Also, I'm not sure how efficient en- and decoding is for FLIF.
- onion2k 11y agoIn the example you suggest using the hairs on the left side of the monkey's face have some significant artifacts. The quality of the jpeg is about the same as the FLIF file with a truncation of 80%, at which point the filesize is less than half the size of jpeg at 60%. If the image quality of the 60% truncated jpeg is acceptable then you can get the same quality but half the size using FLIF at 80%.
- kutkloon7 11y agoI don't understand your argument. The images are the same size. A 235KB jpeg of the monkey is almost indistinguishable from lossless, while in a 470KB flif, there are already unacceptable artifacts.
- IshKebab 11y agoNot sure what you're trying to say exactly, but at the same file size ('Compare with same size JPEG' + 60% truncation), FLIF is obviously far worse than JPEG.