this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Furry Technologists

1603 readers
1 users here now

Science, Technology, and pawbs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] yote_zip@pawb.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

PNG compression is an absolute joke so that's not worth anything - JPEG-XL and WebP Lossless beat PNG by a longshot. PNG also requires intense optimization to be truly compressed, and I'm not sure to what extent they tried to optimize their PNG results. As an example, the lossless comparison chart I uploaded was 380KB initially, and I was able to optimize it to 280KB using OxiPNG. The PNGs in the lossless comparison chart were properly optimized.

Beating FLAC is interesting, but FLAC compression hasn't really been updated in a long time TMK - I wonder if there's traditional gains left on the table with modern compression techniques?

A copy of the original paper can be found here.

[โ€“] ignotum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yeah, PNG is overly complex, slow to encode/decode, and despite all that, it atill doesn't compress the picture very well

I think i heard that one of the creators of the format said he didn't have any experience with compression, and they more or less just threw things at the wall to see what stuck

If you want the mediocre compression level of PNG, but waaaay faster, i can recommend QOI