4 ms·
Seems like the gains in pallete information is wasted in precise placement of pixels for dithering. Net loss IMHO, except for naive formats like bitmap. Interes
by tlarkworthy 6y ago
Seems like the gains in pallete information is wasted in precise placement of pixels for dithering. Net loss IMHO, except for naive formats like bitmap.
Interesting nevertheless but I guess we could do better by optimizing against the storage format. But then we are at the state-of-the-art
- this_was_posted 6y agoI think it's mainly beneficial for things where the palette of your medium is limited such as thermal receipts/labels and epaper/e-ink
- marcan_42 6y agoLower bit depth/palette encoding has not been a state of the art option for compressing natural images like this for decades, and nobody is claiming it is. If you're doing this, it's either because your medium is limited (retro games or 8-bit equivalent embedded systems), because you can't afford the CPU power to decompress something more complex (unlikely these days), because lower bit depth is ideal for the rest of your image (e.g. largely UI graphics with no gradients, and just a few small graphics), or because you just don't care. But given those reasons exist, there is value in researching better dithering algorithms. Also, to some extent, these things also apply to non-palette formats (dithering to lower bit depths), and that is still relevant today when e.g. converting HDR content to typical 8bpc (24bpp) formats.
- the8472 6y agoAlso note that some cheap displays are not even true 8bpc and employ temporal dithering to emulate 256 color steps.