4 ms·
I think FLIF seems better as a PNG replacement. FLIF is a lossless format, although lossy encoding is also available. Still, PNG is much better than GIF, so GIF
by zzo38computer 7y ago
I think FLIF seems better as a PNG replacement. FLIF is a lossless format, although lossy encoding is also available. Still, PNG is much better than GIF, so GIF should not be used unless you need it for use with software that can't use PNG.
(This kind of lossy encoding would be possible with PNG too, but most PNG encoders don't have a lossy mode.)
(GIF is now patent-free, but PNG and FLIF are still better compression than GIF anyways.)
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoThe FLIF author's next project FUIF is now partly the basis for JPEG XL which replaces (or at least aims to replace) PNG and all the other standard web formats. Pngs get used for both for non photographic images and photographic images with alpha channel, and JPEG XL should win on both of those use cases. It also cleverly has an upgrade story forexisting JPEGs so I imagine a fairly quick uptake where a proxy can recompress an existing sites images and get better size with no recompression loss.
- chungy 7y agoI like FLIF too, but it has zero browser support, whereas all Chromium and Gecko browsers support WebP. Something nice about FLIF is partial decoding. You can reasonably see a thumbnail by downloading just 5% of the full lossless file.
- Lorin 7y agoFLIF needs a catchier, pronounceable file extension name.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoThis feature has been carried through to his work on JPEG XL, which is co-created with Google (using their Pik and Brunsli tech) and so fairly likely to get wide browser support. In conjunction with HTTP2 to progressively load all visible images first, this is a killer feature for the web, simplifying thumbnails and responsive design while vastly speeding up page loads and improving caching.