Bug 1240692 (FLIF)

Implement support for Free Lossless Image Format (FLIF)

NEW
Unassigned

Status

()

Core
ImageLib
--
major
a year ago
13 days ago

People

(Reporter: Virtual, Unassigned)

Tracking

({feature, nightly-community})

unspecified
feature, nightly-community
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
firefox-backlog ?

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [gfx-noted], URL)

More info here - http://flif.info/
Flags: firefox-backlog?
See Also: → bug 856375
Decode performance is a weakness of FLIF. See https://github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF/issues/89
Whiteboard: [gfx-noted]
Will web authors have to upload FLIF for Firefox, JPEG XR for IE/Edge, WebP for Chrome, and JPEG 2000 for Safari? Excellent...
See Also: → bug 1111277
Alias: FLIF
Summary: (FLIF) Implement FLIF (Free Lossless Image Format) support → Implement FLIF (Free Lossless Image Format) support
Summary: Implement FLIF (Free Lossless Image Format) support → Implement support for Free Lossless Image Format (FLIF)
See Also: → bug 500500
See Also: → bug 36351
See Also: bug 160261

Comment 3

a year ago
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #2)
> Will web authors have to upload FLIF for Firefox, JPEG XR for IE/Edge, WebP
> for Chrome, and JPEG 2000 for Safari? Excellent...

Not necessarily... according to information on http://flif.info , FLIF compresses on average ~20% better than any other well known lossless image codec. With savings this big, with the additional bonus of the image format being responsive and progressive by design, there's a good reason for multiple browser vendors to consider implementing this codec.

Comment 4

a year ago
(In reply to oscarnardone from comment #3)
> (In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #2)
> > Will web authors have to upload FLIF for Firefox, JPEG XR for IE/Edge, WebP
> > for Chrome, and JPEG 2000 for Safari? Excellent...
> 
> Not necessarily... according to information on http://flif.info , FLIF
> compresses on average ~20% better than any other well known lossless image
> codec. With savings this big, with the additional bonus of the image format
> being responsive and progressive by design, there's a good reason for
> multiple browser vendors to consider implementing this codec.

There's also good reason for multiple browser vendors to consider implementing webp, but it seems that's not going to happen any time soon
Keywords: feature
Has Regression Range: --- → irrelevant
Has STR: --- → irrelevant

Comment 5

8 months ago
Should it actually be implemented? If so, may I be given this task?
(In reply to Vitor from comment #5)
> Should it actually be implemented? If so, may I be given this task?

I believe there are still concerns about decode performance.

Comment 7

4 months ago
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #2)
> Will web authors have to upload FLIF for Firefox, JPEG XR for IE/Edge, WebP
> for Chrome, and JPEG 2000 for Safari? Excellent...

Not necessarily, first off some browsers might become less important over time (not naming any specifically nor any reasons like abandoning most addons, mind you :-)).

* XR was DOA due to lackluster compression and MS knows it, thus no development there and now XT. 
* 2K is complex/slow and high compression wavelets lack the visual "sharpness" of dct blocks.

Which leaves us with WebP, which is fast, has ok lossy and good (pre-processed or 100%) lossless compression. I really do like FLIF, but some of its strengths like no generation loss and high bit depths aren't critical for Internet usage. Plus atm(!) it's slow and compression isn't that revolutionary for general photographic images vs. webp.

That leaves us with FLIF in a browser as a PNG-ish replacement for other image types than photography ... certainly nice to have, but I'm personally using it as a offline format for image editing and adoption for gimp and ps seems more critical to me. Ymmv.
Keywords: nightly-community

Comment 8

13 days ago
(In reply to oscarnardone from comment #3)
> (In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #2)
> > Will web authors have to upload FLIF for Firefox, JPEG XR for IE/Edge, WebP
> > for Chrome, and JPEG 2000 for Safari? Excellent...
> 
> Not necessarily... according to information on http://flif.info , FLIF
> compresses on average ~20% better than any other well known lossless image
> codec. With savings this big, with the additional bonus of the image format
> being responsive and progressive by design, there's a good reason for
> multiple browser vendors to consider implementing this codec.

I don't think it has any chance of widespread support without somehow getting accepted by the IETF, and for that the support of Google might be needed. A lot of convincing needs to happen.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.