/g/ - Technology

/g/ - Technology
Text Board: /tech/

Posting mode: Reply

4chan turned ~~five~~ 4 4/4 years old on Wednesday, October 1^st 2008

File :1223076693.gif-(2.1 MB, 200x150, 1209244369810.gif)

Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:31 No.2385145

When did JPG become the standard image format for everything?

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:32 No.2385148 >>2385145 When everyone was on 14 kbps modems.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:32 No.2385151 1482

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:32 No.2385152 When CRTs died and the Internet was invented.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:33 No.2385154 >>2385145 Since 4chan is on a 14 kbps modem.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:35 No.2385159 4chan needs more baud

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:36 No.2385161 >>2385145 When the copyright holder of the LZW algorithim started playing asshat with royalties. That, along with more people running machines in 16 bit color, led to a push from .GIF to JPEG.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:39 No.2385168 >>2385161 Correct answers are never fun. Also, dicks everywhere.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:39 No.2385169 People who save mspaint comics as jpegs piss me off. They take long to load and have jpeg artofacting everywhere.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:41 No.2385176 corn baby

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:43 No.2385187 when people decided that being 90% smaller before noticeable differences in quality appeared was better for limited hard drive and bandwidth space.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:44 No.2385199 >>2385187 But jpegs have shitty compression.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:44 No.2385200 When people realized that socialism doesn't work, even in file formats.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:45 No.2385207 >>2385169 I never do this because I've suffered many times from those shitty paint jpegs.

Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:50 No.2385230

>>2385187
When JPG was standardized upon by Webmasters, PNG was very new, and not even supported by many commonly ran browsers. JPEGS really started showing up around '96-98, but at that point, most cutting-edge browsers either couldn't show PNGs or had mish-mash support. Bandwidth and hard disk space were factors, too, but if people running AOL or Netscape 3 couldn't even SEE the pictures inline, you just couldn't use it.

>>2385207
ImageMagick has this problem, too. Its default JPEG compression looks foul, so I always take my screenshots from it in PNG.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:50 No.2385233 Any screenshots from retro games should also never be saved as jpegs.

>>	Sky Render !YVKonataVQ 10/03/08(Fri)19:51 No.2385240 >But jpegs have shitty compression. Which lossy file formats (that allow for more than 256 colors) have better compression? Serious question.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)19:57 No.2385260 For animated graphics with few colors: GIF For simple graphics: SVG For graphics in general: PNG For photos: JPEG Most people think of JPEG as hurr smaller format hurr.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:02 No.2385290 I use bmp for everything, best format ever.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:02 No.2385292 The only thing not fail about EFG is that he isn't a jpeg.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:04 No.2385301 >>2385290 except for PNG having the same quality in less space.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:04 No.2385302 >>2385290 PNGs are the same thing as bitmaps but smaller.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:06 No.2385306 For animated graphics with few colors: PNG For simple graphics: PNG For graphics in general: PNG For photos: JPEG

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:08 No.2385313 >>2385306 Animated pngs are shitty right now. Also, svgs are a lot smaller for big, simple logos.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:14 No.2385338 PNGs should support some sort of compression that works on images with jpeg artifacting.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:16 No.2385359 >>2385338 they do. however, it's lossless compression, not enhancement compression.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:19 No.2385370 >>2385302 It was a joke. Just imagine how fucking huge my 4chan folder would be if everything was .bmp

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:27 No.2385401 >>2385359 >enhancement compression Is such a thing even possible?

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:30 No.2385427 File :1223080226.png-(58 KB, 4096x4096, all colors.png) Could someone compress this a little more?

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:33 No.2385441 >>2385427 This reminds me, is there an option in gimp that counts the amount of colors in an image and allows me to swap them?

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:41 No.2385479 >>2385427 HOly fuckshit!

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:44 No.2385492 >>2385240 JPEG2000?

Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:47 No.2385506
File :1223081242.png-(550 KB, 720x672, JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png)

>>2385240
>>2385492

JPEG-2000 is actually worse than JPEG in many cases; probably because of a combination of the technology being immature and wavelets having a number of problems (such as tending to blur details away). Image related.

The only format I know that consistently wipes the floor with JPEG is H.264 (yes--that H.264). In intra mode, it can compress far better than JPEG or JPEG-2000 at much better quality.

Of course, neither H.264 Intra nor JPEG-2000 will be widely used as image formats for years--because they're heavily patented. Nobody wants to make their browser cost money, even if it would allow for 50% better image compression.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)20:57 No.2385548 >>2385506 I think I can see PREDATOR in those pics.

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)21:02 No.2385569 File :1223082168.png-(55 KB, 4096x4096, test.png) >>2385427 How about this?

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)21:06 No.2385581 >>2385569 Flipping them back and forth, I can't see any difference. gj

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)21:11 No.2385609 File :1223082676.jpg-(4 KB, 126x126, 1223082168428s.jpg) >>2385581 NOW WHAT?!

>>	Anonymous 10/03/08(Fri)21:11 No.2385611 File :1223082711.png-(569 KB, 720x672, 1223081242230.png) >>2385548 >I think I can see PREDATOR in those pics.

Delete Post [File Only]
Password

Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]