Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Anonymous (ID: !jbUdbG1eQc)
Pictures 2016-06-04 04:38:14 Post No. 54901130
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Pictures 2016-06-04 04:38:14 Post No. 54901130
[Report] Image search: [Google]
>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
>>
File: accept christ.jpg.jpg (51KB, 720x729px) Image search:
[Google]
51KB, 720x729px
>>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.
>>
File: i do not exist.jpg (2KB, 125x70px) Image search:
[Google]
2KB, 125x70px
>>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.
>>
File: todays kids dont remember big phones.png (243KB, 604x463px) Image search:
[Google]
243KB, 604x463px
>>54901808
It's a moot point anyway, because of intellectual property and no unpopularity of either option.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4