3 ms·

Again, have you seen crushPNG and similar tools? To me, a format must offer significant advantages to overtake decades old standards.

solardev 4y ago
Crushpng is a size optimized png encoder, right? Is there a particular statistic/test you're referring to? Webp does lossy compression with alpha, think photographs with transparent parts. Png can't do that lossily and jpegs can't be transparent.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  Oh, but they can :) Dittering, quantization and lots of dirty tricks: https://pngmini.com/lossypng.html https://pngmini.com/lossypng.html
  - solardev 4y ago
    Or... Just use webp?
    - tambourine_man 4y ago
      Which won’t open in Photoshop 2021, or your parents notSoSmart TV. Questions like: will you be able to open them in 20 years, does this version of ImageMagic supports it, are not things I’d want to deal with daily. Yeah, thanks but no thanks. Hard to compete with standards with expired patents and equivalent if not better performance when the other side is sponsored by a single company. Especially one not particularly known for long term commitment to their projects.
      - solardev 4y ago
        I don't think webp was ever meant to be an archival format, especially when used lossily. I wouldn't want a dithered blurred png to be the one archived image I have, either. Typically I've seen webp served at the CDN or client, where a png or jpeg alternative is also available, and where (hopefully) the website owner has the original asset somewhere safe. Between "now" and "nobody uses webp" anymore, it's still a super useful format to speed up pages for a majority of users. That doesn't mean you should rely on it to be a safe archival medium, but that's not the only consideration. Of course nobody is going to force you to use that (or really notice if you don't). It's just one image format out of gazillions.

3 ms·

Again, have you seen crushPNG and similar tools? To me, a format must offer significant advantages to overtake decades old standards.

by tambourine_man 4y ago

solardev 4y ago
Crushpng is a size optimized png encoder, right? Is there a particular statistic/test you're referring to? Webp does lossy compression with alpha, think photographs with transparent parts. Png can't do that lossily and jpegs can't be transparent.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  Oh, but they can :) Dittering, quantization and lots of dirty tricks: https://pngmini.com/lossypng.html https://pngmini.com/lossypng.html
  - solardev 4y ago
    Or... Just use webp?
    - tambourine_man 4y ago
      Which won’t open in Photoshop 2021, or your parents notSoSmart TV. Questions like: will you be able to open them in 20 years, does this version of ImageMagic supports it, are not things I’d want to deal with daily. Yeah, thanks but no thanks. Hard to compete with standards with expired patents and equivalent if not better performance when the other side is sponsored by a single company. Especially one not particularly known for long term commitment to their projects.
      - solardev 4y ago
        I don't think webp was ever meant to be an archival format, especially when used lossily. I wouldn't want a dithered blurred png to be the one archived image I have, either. Typically I've seen webp served at the CDN or client, where a png or jpeg alternative is also available, and where (hopefully) the website owner has the original asset somewhere safe. Between "now" and "nobody uses webp" anymore, it's still a super useful format to speed up pages for a majority of users. That doesn't mean you should rely on it to be a safe archival medium, but that's not the only consideration. Of course nobody is going to force you to use that (or really notice if you don't). It's just one image format out of gazillions.