Pictures
- Home
- Board: /g/ - Technology
- Reading: Pictures
We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.
>storing an image of a real object as a png takes a lot of space
>storing as a jpeg introduces loss
>you can use lossless jpeg, but you need a patched version of the jpeg library
>no one patches their libraries for lossless jpeg anymore, because jpeg2000 includes a lossless option
>no one uses jpeg2000 for patent reasons
>other formats are also too obscure to be useful
Why even live?
>>54901130
>>storing an image of a real object as a png takes a lot of space
...And? You can get a TB hard drive for $40
Stupid frogposter.
>>54901350
This.
Then if you need to send it anywhere, right click > edit > ctrl+s > .jpg
>>54901350
Large images take a certain amount of time to load or transfer, which is especially inconvenient for me because I sometimes need to use a different computer than my current workstation. The extra space adds up. See also: file size limits And it's a needless waste of space.
>>54901397
But then my friends will only have artifacty images, and the inevitable decay of society will be furthered one step.
I have everything on tga.
>>54901677
Which die did you roll to decide that?
>>54901130
>jpeg2000
jpeg2000 is ass. storing pictures as a single h.264 frame takes up less space.
>>54901808
It's a moot point anyway, because of intellectual property and no unpopularity of either option.
