3 ms·
That's exactly it: we do not have a commonly implemented lossy format that supports transparency.
by metafunctor 13y ago
That's exactly it: we do not have a commonly implemented lossy format that supports transparency.
- homosaur 13y agoYeah I only asked because I agree with the above poster that we can't consider WebP common yet but was unsure if I was forgetting something. I can see the utility in this then, at least as a stopgap.
- svantana 13y agoAren't you forgetting GIF? Not a great format admittedly, but in photoshop there's even a "lossy" slider.
- xsmasher 13y agoThe GIF format is not lossy. There is no "quality" option in the format itself; just a color depth option, same as PNG. Photoshop uses the same tricks for "lossy" gif that this article uses for PNG.
- pornel 13y agoI've researched lossy GIF too: http://pornel.net/lossygif http://pornel.net/lossygif but even lossy version wasn't better than PNG. LZW is just a very poor compression. Even best case is taking ridiculous amount of bits (you can only add 1 byte to previously used pattern, so it's sequence of symbols for 1+2+3+5+6+etc. pixels resetting every 4k iterations), so there isn't even room for improvement. So, GIF is awful. Should be forgotten.
- SeppoErviala 13y agoOnly reason GIF is still alive is its animation support. APNG and WEBP+animation are not there yet. 8-bit palette and crappy compression do not matter when you offer exclusive features.