Talk:Comparison of graphics file formats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge This 2 Vector file formats? 3 GIF Patent 4 TGA Patented? 5 Other Formats 6 MIME Types 7 64- and 128-bit color 8 SVG vector/raster 9 Whatever Happened to .ico? 10 JPEG-HDR 11 Maximum Dimensions? 12 Bias in patents 13 JPEG Patent 14 Categorising? 15 patented 16 improvement ideas 17 Discussion of color depth is inconsistent 18 Lots of new additions... 19 animated PNGs 20 HD Photo 21 alpha 22 EPS Format

[edit] Merge This

There is a more extensive list on Comparison of graphics file formats. There should also be distinctions made between native and open standard file formats. Notes about interactivity (e.g. Flash Action Script) should be included. Oicumayberight 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge. The other layout of this page seems to be better.
83.190.159.240 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge, this page is completely redundant. Brianski 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vector file formats?

Couldn't help but notice: Vector file formats listed on Graphics file format summary are missing here. I'll add some, others please chime in ... --Vituperex 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For vector formats an image can be 2D or 3D (regardless of layers). A column should really be added to show that. I would add the info, if I knew how to do it, and knew more than DXF! --Owen58.169.7.131 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GIF Patent

I'm pretty sure GIF is no longer patented. Maybe a little updating? I'm not going to because I'm not absolutely sure... --Shorty114 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TGA Patented?

I'm fairly certain, though not absolutely, that TGA isn't a patented format. It can be either uncompressed or compressed using RLE.--Frankjr1284 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Formats

• DjVu. DjVu has DjVuPhoto.
• What about Encapsulated Postscript (EPS)? Pat Berry 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIME Types

I vote against including MIME types in the comparison. They're also in Graphics file format summary and cause problems there because of not being standarized. -- Peter 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64- and 128-bit color

Can someone please verify the existence of 64- and 128-bit color? I don't think they exist. Most formats that support 48-bit color (16 bits per channel), only support 8 bits for alpha blending (for a total of 56 bits per pixel). Similarly, if a format supported 32 bits per channel, the result would be 96-bit color; with an 8-bit alpha channel, the result would be 104 total bits per pixel.—Kbolino 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered my own question. The PNG standard specifies that the alpha channel must be as wide as the color channels.—Kbolino 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you consider a CMYK image in 32 bits-per-channel with alpha that would be 160 bits-per-pixel. also i read somewhere weta digital (the effects company) may use 64 bits-per-channel images, so rgba would be 256 bit!. (is it wrong to add to a year old thread?) Dns13 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG vector/raster

I do believe (and, as anyone can see above, my beliefs have a degree of inaccuracy) that SVG is a vector format. It cannot be exclusively raster, and as far as I know, it cannot embed raster images (only link to them). So, it is therefore an exclusively vector format.—Kbolino 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can embed. --80.63.213.182 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever Happened to .ico?

Have we forgoten a format so often used? I don't know it's info though...--Mac Lover 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPEG-HDR

I am not sure about the whole specifications but JPEG is now available in a new JPEG-HDR format that can be read either by a classical JPEG reader that will only get the LDR information or by a JPEG-HDR reader that will restitute the full HDR information...

Yes, there is an unofficial JPEG-HDR format created by Greg Ward. --Dns13 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum Dimensions?

It would be nice to have a column which gives the maximum image dimensions (and perhaps file size) allowed by the format. --Klaws 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any formats have maximum sizes? Althepal 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are defined and implied (implementational) dimensional, resolution and data size limitations in all formats. nemo 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though this is the strength of Wikipedia, in a sense that it would be difficult to challenge such basic specifications, publicizing these limitations might cause premature extinction of the format (unlike the 24fps of motion picture as Showscan 60fps licensing was deemed too expensive). Despite TIFF supporting 48-bit color, there is a 2GiB - 1 filesize limit (2147483647 bytes), so it could not be used for an image over 358MP (e.g. 622MP Gigapixel camera)

This is currently being addressed by the BigTIFF rework, see [1]. nemo 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in patents

While I am personally against software patents, many people aren't. The use of "but yes" and "but no" here is obviously biased. In respect of WP:NPOV, I propose discontinuing the use of those templates on this page (whatever the outcome of the template deletion). --Karnesky 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why; being patented obviously tends to make a file format less useful. —Ashley Y 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Less useful to you or me. More useful to the patent holder. --Karnesky 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But there is no single patent holder, is there? And in any case, this page is intended for the user. —Ashley Y 03:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "average user" doesn't care one way or another. Most "power-users" (e.g. developers) without patent rights think they are "bad." Those with access to the patent right think they are "good." Furthermore, where do you draw the line? Why is the EXPIRED gif patent make the format less useful for anyone (other than those that no longer hold a monopoly on the technology)?

All of this is slightly tangental, though--using merely "yes" or "no" is clear & any who object to patents will be able to make their own conclusions.

If you want to emphasize the difference, I think that you'd be better served by doing so CONSTRUCTIVELY. Maybe you should list/link the actual patents that apply. A long string of numbers would seem to be the same sort of "subjective warning" that you want. --Karnesky 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is right, Karnesky. That is why I had removed the but yes templates, and Ashley Y reverted four times. Althepal 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the expired and disputed one. Do you see how it's not a simple "yes"/"no"? Given the level of detail this page goes into, it's clearly intended for the developer as well as the user. In any case, patents impact availability of software for the user, so it's an issue for them too, if perhaps a small one. —Ashley Y 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so "but yes" and "but no" have now been deleted. What should be done about "Expired", "Disputed" and "?" in the "Patents" column? —Ashley Y 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this is not a purely yes/no column, I have opted for red = "patented", green = "expired patent"/"unpatented". —Ashley Y 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that NOBODY agrees with you. I am reverting your edits for a final time on behalf of all Wikipedians. There is no reason to have backwards coloring on this (Wikipedia is directed at buyers AND sellers) and green on Wikipedia everywhere else means YES. I thought you liked things being the same as everything else. A further revert on your part would be breaking the 3 revert rule a couple times over and your exclusion from Wikipedia. If you further revert, I will let others undo your actions. Althepal 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, this isn't a pure "Yes"/"No" column. It's got "Expired" and "Disputed" as well, and it makes no sense to have "Expired" the same colour as "Yes". —Ashley Y 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most things are not pure yes or no on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that the colors have to be switched. Althepal 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. What colours should "Expired" and "Disputed" be? —Ashley Y 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They could be light gray or tan, but they are also okay the way they are. Althepal 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now "expired" is the same colour (green) as "yes". So in one case you have something green because it is patented ("Yes"), and in another case you have something green because it is not patented ("Expired"). This makes no sense. —Ashley Y 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Make them gray if they are not patented like the others. Althepal 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But "Expired" means not patented. Shouldn't they be the same colour as "No"? —Ashley Y 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why "expired" is the color it is. Feel free to make "expired" with a "no" template. Althepal 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "yes" should be red and "no" should be green here. I've seen that colouring in other articles (For example, Comparison of audio codecs). I think green colour means "good", "useful", "unlimited", "ad-free", "open-source" and so on, and red means "bad", "limited", "restriced", "proprietary" ... So green=="no problems" and red=="problems may be" about licences and patents. Do you agree that when there is no patent there is no problem for users and developers? Another example: Comparison of file sharing applications, the "Adware/Spyware" column. Yes=red, No=green, and that's right. I think "No" should be green, "Yes" should be red, "Disputed" should be yellow or white, and "Expired" should be also green. I've changed it. _Vi 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPEG Patent

The dispute has ended. Forgent patent was found invalid; even if it was valid, it would have expired by now. I tried to change it to Invalid, but it justs says No. Can someone fix that for me, or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobby D. DS. (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

• It's the "?" in the link that is the problem. I need to remember to sign my comments. --Bobby D. DS. 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorising?

This is just an idea, could we maybe categorise these formats by how commonly used they are? I know nothing about programming and such, but I got kind of miffed having to scroll through what is apparently several pages of formats that I've never heard of just to find a comparison between .png and .jpg. Maybe put the most common (.png, .tiff, .jpg, .gif, .psd, .pdf, .bmp, .ai, .svg, etc) at the top, than the rest alphabetically? Might make it more user-friendly. FireFly5 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] patented

Why patented = no is red and yes green?

What does the patent add to the file format?

As green has a good conotation and patented formats are more diffucult to use, shouldn't patednted yes be in red andno in green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.44.229 (talk • contribs)

This topic has been discussed in depth (with strawpolls) on multiple pages. The current consensus is that green indicates yes and red indicates no and that there is no "value judgment" intended by them (even if there was: patents aren't "good" or "bad" and neither is it necessarily good or bad that a format might have or not have a particular feature listed under "technical details). --Karnesky 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do would be to switch the column to "unpatented", "patent free" or some variation, allowing Yes (green) to mean "good" (for those who don't hold the patent) and No (red) to mean "bad", thus keeping everyone happy... -- Southen 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But making Yes red and No green is also common practice (Comparison of file sharing applications, Spyware/Adware column). _Vi 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] improvement ideas

I'd like to suggest some improvements so that the tables can be read easier and quicker...

• Juggling the columns around on the technical details table so that related columns are grouped. so HDR is next to Color depth & Indexed mode. And then Meta data is next to Color management and Extendable.
• As the tech table is looking a bit cramped how about moving the Raster/Vector column to the general info table.
• I also think that the ' yes, no, yes, no ' in columns are a bit confusing as you have to scroll back and forth to the top to see which info it means. How about using some 3 or 4 letter shorthand instead so that the columns are self explanatory. e.g. IDX, HDR, TRN, Pages, ANIM, LAY, C-M, META, XTEN,... when it means Yes?.

I'm suggesting this now as I have info on over 40 formats that would be a nightmare to edit after adding to this page. Dns13 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of color depth is inconsistent

The column header links to the Wikipedia definition of color depth, specifically, choices of the number of BITS used to encode color, yet some entries, as in the "ILBM" row, have n-bit specified. I am unable to verify, but either they all should be n-bit or all leave the "-bit" off. It (seems to be - read on - or) is implied by the column header.

As a side note, I guess using the term "color depth" is also unclear. I've heard it mostly to refer to the maximum number of colors that can be specified in a file. Wikipedia is the first place I've seen "color depth" refer to the number of bits used to encode color. That should be clarified.

Philpet 00:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)philpet

Yup. IMHO, GIF has a color depth of 24 bits, but it can only use 256 of the 16M colors at once.

In general, the color depth information is not overly helpful. For example, when 32 bits are specified, how are the 32 bits allocated to the three colors?

Perhaps the article should, instead of color depth (or in addition to), state things like palette-based, "true color", 12-bit grayscale, whatever, with an explanation at the botton ot the top what is meant by each of these words. Might be easier to grok. --Klaws (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of color channels might also play a role in this. JPEG XR, IIRC, allows for more than 3 color channels, adding more to the confusion (like, 5 color channels at 16 bits = 80 bit color depth?). --Klaws (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep it is confusing. I'm more used to refering to things in terms of Bits Per Channel, such as 8bit integer, 10bit logarithmic, 16 bit integer, 16bit float, 32bit float. And it starts getting funnier when 3d rendering is considered using extra channels such as alphas, z depth, normals, uv coordinates, etc. Perhaps the table should state what colour modes are supported, such as RGB, Grayscale, CMYK, Lab, XYZ and then what channel precision. --Dns13 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of new additions...

1. there appears to be lots of new additions to the general info table. but its probably better to add them to the technical details page at the same time otherwise the format seems only half covered (that's if they even have the info for some of these obscure formats).
2. adding video formats may be a bit odd trying to fit into the graphics file format comparison. someone added MNG, but they may be better off having their own comparison page.
3. also someone has suggessted (by the page history) that PNG is an hdr format. i looked at the libpng link and there is nothing to suggest that it's hdr. png does support 16 bit per channel (as well as the normal 8 bit per channel) but this doesn't refer to brighter than white or darker than black colours. it is possible to use an hdr icc color profile (such as the orphanage's log profile) but then this could also be done with jpeg2000, etc. hdr is more commonly used just with floating point or cineon images.

Dns13 12:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] animated PNGs

hey ^_^

on my computer, i use amsn, which when i look at the file locations of the smileys, shows where they are and that they're all saved as .png, even the animated ones. this article shows that they can't be animated, but they obviously can, but not many of the programs i've tried to open them in have seen them as animated ... so ... ya =X - Chris 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by !!!Chris!!! (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PNG simply cannot hold image sequences. The format has no provisions to address more than one image in one file. To address this shortcoming, MNG was developed, but this format was never widely supported and can now be considered obsolete. ANG is one of the potential successors; it has the advantage that it will look like a PNG to applications which do not have ANG support (so they can still display it as a still image).

Note that your assumption seems to be based on the observed file name extension, which is meaningless when it comes to http transfer. Instead, the file type is communicated to the browser via a file-type header. So a file with extension .png can contain a GIF as well as anything else.

Some image display or processing programs also detect the file type by looking into the file, not at the extension. Many image file formates include signature bytes which can tell the software which format really is in use. --Klaws (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Forget what I said anbout ANG - the backward compatible variant is APNG, which is not one of the offical ppotential standards (APNG was a proposed but rejected extension). --Klaws (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HD Photo

Shouldn't HD Photo be renamed to the JPEG XR name? --RobIII 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The pages for JPEG XR and HD Photo seem to keep being renamed back and forth. I think it's not completely standardised yet, so it's probably better to leave it as HD Photo for the moment. --Dns13 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] alpha

The table is ugly, can this be rewritten in prose eventually? Yes, it can. I think it should.

Also, it would be great to include information: "Does X format support alpha channels?". User:Pedant 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a column for whether it supports Transparency although some formats support multiple Alpha channels. --Dns13 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EPS Format

I was surprised to see that there was no mention of the .EPS format. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allaccesspasses (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)