cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 17 days agoWebplemmy.mlimagemessage-square199linkfedilinkarrow-up1195arrow-down141 cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1154arrow-down1imageWebplemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 17 days agomessage-square199linkfedilink cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squareflamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·17 days agoLossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
minus-squareCarighan Maconar@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·17 days agoWatch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
minus-squarevithigar@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up5·17 days agoXerox did that ages ago. https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
minus-squareCarighan Maconar@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·16 days agoFuuuuuck. There goes another business idea. 😂
minus-squaretyler@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·16 days agoHuh? The OP literally said “their lossless beats png” and then you proceeded to talk about file size which wasn’t ever part of the conversation. The conversation was about quality.
Lossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
Watch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
Xerox did that ages ago.
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
Fuuuuuck. There goes another business idea. 😂
Huh? The OP literally said “their lossless beats png” and then you proceeded to talk about file size which wasn’t ever part of the conversation. The conversation was about quality.
deleted by creator