What's wrong with it? Well it was supposed to replace the jpeg and gif
standards in web pages, (when it looked like jpeg might have been
patented and of gif always had always been owned by CompuServe IIRC and
there were threats of lawsuits over licensing), both of which ware
relatively lightweight image files that should be used for different
purposes. PNG tries to replace both and does it badly, and also can be
used as a general purpose editing format, so it also want's to be a Tiff
or maybe a PSD file. If they had just tried to make a lossless
equivalent of Jpeg, (and isn't there a JPEG 2000, standard that's
supposed to be lossless, anyway which while larger than normal jpegs is
still much smaller than PNG), The designers tried to put too much into
it, and almost no one uses it, now that the threat to users of jpegs and
gifs has receded.
On 5/15/2014 2:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
P.J. Alling wrote:
You just described what png should have been except that it became a
bloated misbegotten camel from a committee trying to design a horse.
I don't understand what you mean by this. What's wrong with PNG? The
files are much larger than JPEG but that's an unavoidable consequence
of using lossless compression with image data.
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
