> Al wrote:
> Yes, LiveCode shell control is a real godsend for
> working with command line programs, but we could
> not use webP compressed images within our stacks
> unless LC engine could decode them back to RGBA
> images within LiveCode.
So what's the problem?
Decode them with shell to a (tem
Alejandro Tejada wrote:
> Hermann Hoch wrote:
>> For webP you could use (from LC via shell) these
>> free WebP utilities for Mac/Win/linux
>
> Yes, LiveCode shell control is a real godsend for
> working with command line programs, but we could
> not use webP compressed images within our stacks
>
For webP you could use (from LC via shell) these free WebP
utilities for Mac/Win/linux:
cwebp -- WebP encoder tool
dwebp -- WebP decoder tool
vwebp -- WebP file viewer
webpmux -- WebP muxing tool
gif2webp -- Tool for converting GIF images to WebP
See https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/downl
> On 26 Aug 2017, at 5:12 am, Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Please, before ruling out completely the opportunity
> to include a modern compressed image format
> like webP,
I don’t think anyone is ruling anything out.
Cheers
Monte
_
NVM you are talking about the compression ratio.
Bob S
> On Aug 25, 2017, at 12:12 , Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> WebP compress flat color graphics (with transparency)
> much better than PNG or GIF.
>
> This is not a guess based on visual comparisons.
___
I thought PNG is lossless. How can the image be better than the original??
Bob S
> On Aug 25, 2017, at 12:12 , Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> WebP compress flat color graphics (with transparency)
> much better than PNG or GIF.
>
> This is not a guess based on visual compariso
Hi Alejandro
webM would require a reasonable size refactor to players because we would need
to wrap a custom player around the library and then decide which player to use
depending on the movie file.
webP on the other hand looks like it could be added without any refactoring,
however, as you c
