3 ms·
> It looks like FLIF doesn't really support lossy well I don't know what you mean by well. As far as I'm concerned lossy FLIF beats JPEG easily. Here is a comp
by sprash 9y ago
> It looks like FLIF doesn't really support lossy well
I don't know what you mean by well. As far as I'm concerned lossy FLIF beats JPEG easily. Here is a comparision:
http://flif.info/lossy-artifacts.html http://flif.info/lossy-artifacts.html
- agentgt 9y agoWhoops looks like I pasted the wrong link. Here is the correct link: http://flif.info/example.html http://flif.info/example.html And yes "well" is relative and what I meant by that is that its not readily easy for a normal user to do it. BTW I think Flif is damn good particularly progressive decoding. Its unclear how good HEIF progressive decoding is.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- emn13 9y agoYeah, even on that fair; jpg-unfriendly example jpeg still clearly beats flif above 22kb. And below 22kb - sure, FLIF is less bad, but it's still unusable. Also, the examples below 22kb are a little unfair to most codecs in practice, since you'd get far better results by downscaling first.