Free Lossless Image Format (FLIF)

Discussion in 'Offtopic Discussions' started by _wb_, Sep 6, 2015.

  1. ible

    ible professional vim user

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,171
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    yeah, as _wb_ mentioned to me earlier in this thread, don't use a lossless format to encode a lossy file (e.g. jpg)...
     
    rygD likes this.
  2. levi

    levi Still fresh, damnit!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,208
    Location:
    Somewhere off the coast of the EU
    Actually, now that it's got lossy support built in, it actually seems to be not to bad for storing photos. I just processed all of the photos off my old 10MP camera into flif via PNG format using the -lossy 50 argument, and comparing the original JPEGs to restored PNGs out of the FLIF files showed that only a little colour resolution was lost I think. The sea lost a few turquoise highlights, while trees appeared slightly more green, but all shapes were maintained, and skintones were all good, and all of that in a file less than a quarter of the size of my original JPEGs! If I weren't comparing them at 1:1 resolution side by side, I probably wouldn't notice any changes.

    I couldn't get flifview to run on my machine fwiw. It complained about a missing so.0 file, but that file had been previously installed via make install. Setting my LD_LIBRARY_PATH (which seemed to be unset, to my surprise) didn't help either.
     
  3. Linux-SWAT

    Linux-SWAT Hardcore Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    8,199
  4. levi

    levi Still fresh, damnit!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,208
    Location:
    Somewhere off the coast of the EU
    Thanks! I'd already tried gdb and clang's static analyser, but both managed to skip over what I wanted.

    It seems the path to libflif.so.0 is hardcoded to be /usr/lib. The install target of the makefiles put it in /usr/local/lib, so viewflif will fail if built and installed from git source. I'll raise an issue, I think.

    Edit: Seems it's an Arch issue. The trick is to use the flif from AUR, not build it yourself from the makefiles it seems.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  5. Magic Sam

    Magic Sam Forever Homebrew

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,214
    Location:
    Innsmouth, MA
    [BUMP]
    Hi all,

    @_wb_ : are you involved in this one ?
    Code:
    https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/
    https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019-jon-sneyer
    
    Cheers, Magic Sam
    [/BUMP]
     
  6. FBnil

    FBnil Ready to Champion the Pyra to the World...

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,760
    Location:
    Yurp


    Yup, that's him!
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2019, Original Post Date: Aug 20, 2019 ---
    The real question now is how much of FLIF is in JPEG-XL ? And can it stand on it's own, as a format, in a hostile world (where other formats reign).
     
    comradekingu and levi like this.
  7. levi

    levi Still fresh, damnit!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,208
    Location:
    Somewhere off the coast of the EU
    I'd expect everything learned during the devlopement of FLIF went into JPEG-XL, therefore almost everything in FLIF made it through. Maybe some things that were in FLIF turned out to be suboptimal in practice and were therefore dropped for JPEG-XL, but otherwise I'd expect JPEG-XL to be a direct development on top of FLIF.
     
  8. Silent-Hunter

    Silent-Hunter Hardcore Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,052
    So are both formats going to be maintained? I was hoping to use FLIF for my photos when it is finished. Should I use JPEG XL instead? Also I see a third one now, FUIF!

    I remember using FLIF for a bit for some images as a test and it worked quite well I thought.
     
  9. levi

    levi Still fresh, damnit!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,208
    Location:
    Somewhere off the coast of the EU
    Yes, I also tried converting some of my JPEGs to FLIF. They came back rather a lot bigger, but that's unsurprising as FLIF had to encode all of the JPEG artifacts losslessly as well as the actual image data. I then found that I could crop the end of the file to a fraction of the size of the original JPEG and still get perfectly usable images out of it. I never spent enough time to figure out how much to actually cut them to store them though, and storing an already lossy JPEG as a cropped FLIF felt doubly lossy to me. If I could actually process my camera RAW files into GIMP out to a flif file, I'd be happier cropping that and saving that, but as far as I can see GIMP still doesn't support FLIF. I don't really want to have to go via a mahoosive PNG if I can avoid it.

    Seems to me that FLIF for us was effectively a preview of JPEG-XL for us, and it's unlikely to be improved on from now on. JPEG-XL meets the requirements set by the Joint Photographic Experts Group, so I'd expect to have better tools support.
     
    FBnil likes this.
  10. elvissteinjr

    elvissteinjr Very Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    439
    Location:
    Germany
    The main thing stopping me from using FLIF was less the overall support, but rather the lack of highly optimized tools. Viewing bigger collections of high-res images was kind of tedious with the load times, let alone the initial conversion process. The bigger backing could hopefully change this. I know that kind of compression doesn't come without computational complexity, but still.
     
  11. FBnil

    FBnil Ready to Champion the Pyra to the World...

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,760
    Location:
    Yurp
    I hope intelligent image viewers will come out, that know to stop reading at 1/3 of the file because I only have SVGA resolution and the image is 4K.
     

Share This Page

Loading...