FRIGN writes:
> I guess a better way to do that would be to use greyscale-farbfeld
> files
There doesn't appear to be such a thing, unless you mean just have R=G=B
and A=65535. Which, to me, seems to suck about as much as using ASCII
for a header that can be parsed with fscanf.
I think it'd be m
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:51:38 +0800
Pickfire wrote:
> Or try the new compression with brotli.
I tested brotli, it doesn't fare very well.
A big aspect of this decision should also be widespread use.
Why use a superior compression algorithm when almost nobody
has an implementation on his computer
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:05:43 -0500
Matthew of Boswell wrote:
Hey Matthew,
> It's not "better"; it sucks less. There's a huge difference.
>
> "better" is a matter of opinion. PPM has a lot of features / alternate
> formats / modes of data representation / endian choices. It supports
> binary 256
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:55:32PM -0800, Louis Santillan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM, David Phillips wrote:
[SNIP]
I intend to do some more widespread testing on a large sample of
different images which I can share the results on. But I can confirm
that as it stands bzip2 looks like
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM, David Phillips wrote:
[SNIP]
> I intend to do some more widespread testing on a large sample of
> different images which I can share the results on. But I can confirm
> that as it stands bzip2 looks likely to be the best candidate.
Try lzham [0] (for more compress
I tried compressing with bzip2 and xz, (both set to maximum
compression with -9). I know xz to be slower, but I have measured it
to have the least bloat when fed random data to compress.
With "clean" low-noise images, it would seem that bzip2 is
out-performing xz markedly, hence your recommendatio
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:44:36 -0500
Random832 wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
> > Well, for one, it's a binary encoding, not ASCII.
>
> I'm not sure why that makes it better, unless you meant for space
> consumption (which I suppose is somehow very important for uncompressed
> raster imag
Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
> Well, for one, it's a binary encoding, not ASCII.
I'm not sure why that makes it better, unless you meant for space
consumption (which I suppose is somehow very important for uncompressed
raster image formats) in which case you're ignoring the fact that PPM
has a for
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Random832 wrote:
> FRIGN writes:
>> Hello fellow hackers,
>>
>> I'm very glad to announce farbfeld to the public, a lossless image
>> format as a successor to "imagefile" with a better name and some
>> format-changes reflecting experiences I made since imagefile
FRIGN writes:
> Hello fellow hackers,
>
> I'm very glad to announce farbfeld to the public, a lossless image
> format as a successor to "imagefile" with a better name and some
> format-changes reflecting experiences I made since imagefile has
> been released.
(snip description of format)
How is
10 matches
Mail list logo
