This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

why hasn't image compression evolved?

#1SomeMacGuyPosted 6/5/2012 7:25:50 AM
we are still stuck with jpg and png
---
Maximum Payload, INFINITY! Currently playing GGPO
#2lol_klingonsPosted 6/5/2012 7:31:45 AM
Don't forget all these!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_graphics_file_formats
---
Oh R'lyeh?
#3Digital StormPosted 6/5/2012 7:31:50 AM
What would be the reason?
---
Ooo eee, oo ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang.
#4Orestes417Posted 6/5/2012 7:34:12 AM
The great thing about standards is there are just so many of them to choose from.
---
Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.
#5pseudo721Posted 6/5/2012 7:57:33 AM
Because, at the end of the day, the image is information that you're trying to store. If you wanna store that information without loss (i.e. lossless compression), then there's only so much compression you can do. Likewise, if you don't mind losing a little information, then you can start making it smaller at the expense of image quality (like JPG does).

While there might be better algorithms for compression out there that haven't been discovered yet, computer storage capacities have increased at such an amazing rate over the years that there hasn't been much of a need to higher compression ratios. When you can get thousands and thousands of high-res photos on a micro-SD card that fits on your fingernail, you don't really care to put in the effort to compress them more.
---
Viri