undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbayindirh10mo ago0 comments

JPEG is no different. Only the decoder is specified. As long as the decoder decodes what you give it to the image you wanted to see, you can implement anything. This is how imgoptim/squash/aerate/dietJPG works. By (ab)using this flexibility.

Same is also true for the most advanced codecs. MPEG-* family and MP3 comes to my mind.

Nothing stops PNG from defining a "set of decoders", and let implementers loose on that spec to develop encoders which generate valid files. Then developers can go to town with their creativity.

0 comments

cm218710mo ago

Video files aren't a good analogy. Before God placed VLC and ffmpeg on earth, you had to install a galaxy of codecs on your computer to get a chance to read a video file and you could never tell exactly what codec was stored in a container, nor if you had the right codec version. Unfortunately there is no vlc and ffmpeg for images (I mean there is, the likes of imagemagick, but the vast majority of software doesn't use them).

bayindirhOP10mo ago

I lived through that era (first K-Lite Codec Pack, then CCCP came along), but still it holds.

Proprietary or open, any visual codec is a battleground. Even in commercial settings, I vaguely remember people saying they prefer the end result of one encoder over another, for the same video/image format, not unlike how photographers judge cameras by their colors.

So maybe, this flexibility to PNG will enable or encourage people to write better or at least unorthodox encoders which can be decoded by standard compliant ones.