Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:15:31 -0400
FRIGN wrote:
> the results aren't as good (this is all due to the bmp-header).
> And damn, BMP's are 100 times harder to parse than this format.
>
> That's what I was talking about.
>
> And I don't see no reason why this couldn't be part of the
> format-specification: Having it compressed.
Interesting. How could a header change the compression so much?
Compression of images should be up to the user. I understand why
one would want compression in the spec, but it only makes sense in
contexts like hard-disk storage or network transfer. The user also
doesn't need the spec's permission to compress his or her images. :-)
Another success: the attached imageRGBA+bzip2 is 58% the size of
the PNG.
Charlie Murphy
(image/png attachment: minotaur.png)
- application/octet-stream attachment: minotaur.image.bz2